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.
69481 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G8VP-6G67-PF46
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:02The Product Feed PRO for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 11.2.3 does not escape the rowCount parameter before outputting it back in an attribute via the woosea_categories_dropdown AJAX action (available to any authenticated user), leading to a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0426"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-07T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Product Feed PRO for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 11.2.3 does not escape the rowCount parameter before outputting it back in an attribute via the woosea_categories_dropdown AJAX action (available to any authenticated user), leading to a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting",
"id": "GHSA-g8vp-6g67-pf46",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:57Z",
"published": "2022-03-08T00:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0426"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2670405"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/de69bcd1-b0b1-4b16-9655-776ee57ad90a"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8VP-GQ5Q-7Q43
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:11 – Updated: 2022-08-20 00:00The way URIs are handled in admin/header.php in Chadha PHPKB Standard Multi-Language 9 allows Reflected XSS (injecting arbitrary web script or HTML) in admin/index.php by adding a question mark (?) followed by the payload.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-10415"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-12T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The way URIs are handled in admin/header.php in Chadha PHPKB Standard Multi-Language 9 allows Reflected XSS (injecting arbitrary web script or HTML) in admin/index.php by adding a question mark (?) followed by the payload.",
"id": "GHSA-g8vp-gq5q-7q43",
"modified": "2022-08-20T00:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:11:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-10415"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://antoniocannito.it/phpkb1#reflected-cross-site-scripting-in-every-admin-page-cve-block-going-from-cve-2020-10391-to-cve-2020-10456"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://antoniocannito.it/?p=137#uxss"
}
],
"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-G8VQ-GPV7-9MMQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-22 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-22 09:31The Bread & Butter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'breadbutter-customevent-button' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 8.2.0.25. This is due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on the 'event' shortcode attribute. The customEventShortCodeButton() function takes the 'event' attribute value and directly interpolates it into a JavaScript string within an onclick HTML attribute without applying esc_attr() or esc_js(). Notably, the sister function customEventShortCode() properly uses esc_js() for the same attribute, but this was omitted in the button variant. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses the page and clicks the injected button.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-4279"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-22T09:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Bread \u0026 Butter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the \u0027breadbutter-customevent-button\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 8.2.0.25. This is due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on the \u0027event\u0027 shortcode attribute. The customEventShortCodeButton() function takes the \u0027event\u0027 attribute value and directly interpolates it into a JavaScript string within an onclick HTML attribute without applying esc_attr() or esc_js(). Notably, the sister function customEventShortCode() properly uses esc_js() for the same attribute, but this was omitted in the button variant. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses the page and clicks the injected button.",
"id": "GHSA-g8vq-gpv7-9mmq",
"modified": "2026-04-22T09:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-04-22T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-4279"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bread-butter/tags/8.2.0.25/src/Base/Shortcode.php#L364"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bread-butter/tags/8.2.0.25/src/Base/Shortcode.php#L380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bread-butter/trunk/src/Base/Shortcode.php#L364"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bread-butter/trunk/src/Base/Shortcode.php#L380"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/0728b42b-5ec7-46a2-a9a5-3316107e9324?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8W3-6GM2-8F4H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-13 15:30 – Updated: 2023-02-23 06:30The Widget Shortcode WordPress plugin through 0.3.5 does not validate and escape some of its shortcode attributes before outputting them back in the page, which could allow users with a role as low as contributor to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks which could be used against high privilege users such as admins.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-13T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Widget Shortcode WordPress plugin through 0.3.5 does not validate and escape some of its shortcode attributes before outputting them back in the page, which could allow users with a role as low as contributor to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks which could be used against high privilege users such as admins.",
"id": "GHSA-g8w3-6gm2-8f4h",
"modified": "2023-02-23T06:30:18Z",
"published": "2023-02-13T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/5117b2e9-75b5-459a-b22a-b0e1b0744bd3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8W6-5J2H-CM99
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-10 21:31Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be exploited by a low privileged attacker to execute malicious scripts in the context of the victim's browser. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction, such as visiting a crafted URL or interacting with a manipulated web page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64563"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-10T19:16:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be exploited by a low privileged attacker to execute malicious scripts in the context of the victim\u0027s browser. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction, such as visiting a crafted URL or interacting with a manipulated web page.",
"id": "GHSA-g8w6-5j2h-cm99",
"modified": "2025-12-10T21:31:34Z",
"published": "2025-12-10T21:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64563"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb25-115.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8W6-GHCH-W9W2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-26 09:30 – Updated: 2025-04-23 18:30Stored cross-site scripting vulnerability when processing profile images exists in GROWI versions prior to v4.1.3. If this vulnerability is exploited, an arbitrary script may be executed on the web browser of the user who accessed the site using the product.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45740"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-26T08:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Stored cross-site scripting vulnerability when processing profile images exists in GROWI versions prior to v4.1.3. If this vulnerability is exploited, an arbitrary script may be executed on the web browser of the user who accessed the site using the product.",
"id": "GHSA-g8w6-ghch-w9w2",
"modified": "2025-04-23T18:30:51Z",
"published": "2023-12-26T09:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45740"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN18715935"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://weseek.co.jp/ja/news/2023/11/21/growi-prevent-xss6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8W8-65MQ-PGMC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-13 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in anzia Ni WooCommerce Order Export allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Ni WooCommerce Order Export: from n/a through 3.1.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54231"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-13T15:15:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in anzia Ni WooCommerce Order Export allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Ni WooCommerce Order Export: from n/a through 3.1.6.",
"id": "GHSA-g8w8-65mq-pgmc",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:42Z",
"published": "2024-12-13T15:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54231"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/ni-woocommerce-order-export/vulnerability/wordpress-ni-woocommerce-order-export-plugin-3-1-6-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8WC-V352-MQR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-20 00:30 – Updated: 2025-06-20 00:30A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in PHPGurukul COVID19 Testing Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /test-details.php of the component Take Action. The manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-6287"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-20T00:15:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in PHPGurukul COVID19 Testing Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /test-details.php of the component Take Action. The manipulation of the argument remark leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-g8wc-v352-mqr6",
"modified": "2025-06-20T00:30:32Z",
"published": "2025-06-20T00:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-6287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://phpgurukul.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.313291"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.313291"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.593878"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-G8WJ-3CR3-6W7V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 20:03 – Updated: 2026-07-08 17:35Summary
The /__nuxt_island/* endpoint accepts attacker-controlled props query/body parameters and renders any island component without verifying that the URL-resident hash (<Name>_<hashId>.json) was actually issued for those inputs by <NuxtIsland>. The hash is computed and embedded client-side but never validated server-side, so the same path can return materially different responses depending on the query.
Island components are documented as rendering independently of route context - page middleware does not apply to them, and they are intentionally cacheable as a function of their props. This advisory does not treat that contract as a vulnerability. It treats the absence of a binding between the URL the cache keys on and the response served at that URL as one.
Impact
In applications where a CDN or reverse-proxy in front of the app caches /__nuxt_island/* keyed by path only (ignoring query) - a documented misconfiguration class, see GHSA-jvhm-gjrh-3h93 - an attacker can prime the cache for a path with their own choice of props, and subsequent users requesting the same path receive the attacker's rendered HTML rather than the response intended for them. The cache entry persists until normal expiry.
Where the affected island has any prop flowing into an unsafe HTML sink in application code (v-html, innerHTML, a third-party renderer treating a prop as HTML), this becomes stored XSS in the embedding page's origin until the cache entry expires. HttpOnly cookies remain out of reach but anything else in the origin (other cookies, in-origin requests, DOM state) is reachable by the injected script.
Preconditions:
experimental.componentIslandsenabled (or the default'auto'with at least one server / island component in the app).- A shared intermediary cache (CDN, reverse-proxy, edge cache) keyed on path only.
- For the XSS pivot specifically: an application-authored island that puts a prop through an unsafe HTML sink.
Without the second precondition, the response shape is per-request and unaffected. Without the third, the worst case is content-swap / inert HTML injection rather than script execution.
Patches
Patched in nuxt@4.4.6 and nuxt@3.21.6 by #35077. The island handler now recomputes the expected hashId from (name, props, context) using the same ohash function <NuxtIsland> already uses to embed the hash in the URL, and rejects requests (HTTP 400) whose URL-resident hash does not match. The response is now a pure function of the request path: a path-keyed shared cache returns the correct response to every requester for that path, and an attacker cannot synthesise a path whose hash matches arbitrary props.
Workarounds
For users unable to upgrade immediately:
- Ensure any intermediary cache keys
/__nuxt_island/*on the full query string, not on the path alone. This is the recommended configuration regardless. - Audit application-authored islands for props flowing into
v-html/innerHTML/ similar HTML sinks; treat island props as untrusted user input.
Note on island authentication
[!IMPORTANT] It's important to remember that route middleware does not run when rendering island components, and islands cannot rely on routing-layer auth. Applications gating sensitive data behind page middleware should enforce that auth inside the island's own data layer (server-only routes,
useRequestEvent+ manual session checks, etc.) rather than relying on the embedding page's middleware - this was true before this advisory and remains true after it.
A separate advisory addresses *.server.vue pages registered as page_<routeName> islands, where the documented "middleware doesn't run for islands" contract collides with the page's own definePageMeta({ middleware }) declaration in a way that constitutes a genuine bug rather than documented behaviour.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.21.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "nuxt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.21.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.4.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "nuxt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0-alpha.1"
},
{
"fixed": "4.4.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.21.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@nuxt/nitro-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.20.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.21.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.4.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@nuxt/nitro-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.4.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-46342"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-349",
"CWE-444",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-19T20:03:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T14:16:31Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe `/__nuxt_island/*` endpoint accepts attacker-controlled `props` query/body parameters and renders any island component without verifying that the URL-resident hash (`\u003cName\u003e_\u003chashId\u003e.json`) was actually issued for those inputs by `\u003cNuxtIsland\u003e`. The hash is computed and embedded client-side but never validated server-side, so the same path can return materially different responses depending on the query.\n\nIsland components are documented as rendering independently of route context - page middleware does not apply to them, and they are intentionally cacheable as a function of their props. This advisory does **not** treat that contract as a vulnerability. It treats the absence of a binding between the URL the cache keys on and the response served at that URL as one.\n\n### Impact\n\nIn applications where a CDN or reverse-proxy in front of the app caches `/__nuxt_island/*` keyed by path only (ignoring query) - a documented misconfiguration class, see GHSA-jvhm-gjrh-3h93 - an attacker can prime the cache for a path with their own choice of props, and subsequent users requesting the same path receive the attacker\u0027s rendered HTML rather than the response intended for them. The cache entry persists until normal expiry.\n\nWhere the affected island has any prop flowing into an unsafe HTML sink in application code (`v-html`, `innerHTML`, a third-party renderer treating a prop as HTML), this becomes stored XSS in the embedding page\u0027s origin until the cache entry expires. `HttpOnly` cookies remain out of reach but anything else in the origin (other cookies, in-origin requests, DOM state) is reachable by the injected script.\n\nPreconditions:\n\n- `experimental.componentIslands` enabled (or the default `\u0027auto\u0027` with at least one server / island component in the app).\n- A shared intermediary cache (CDN, reverse-proxy, edge cache) keyed on path only.\n- For the XSS pivot specifically: an application-authored island that puts a prop through an unsafe HTML sink.\n\nWithout the second precondition, the response shape is per-request and unaffected. Without the third, the worst case is content-swap / inert HTML injection rather than script execution.\n\n### Patches\n\nPatched in `nuxt@4.4.6` and `nuxt@3.21.6` by [#35077](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35077). The island handler now recomputes the expected `hashId` from `(name, props, context)` using the same `ohash` function `\u003cNuxtIsland\u003e` already uses to embed the hash in the URL, and rejects requests (HTTP 400) whose URL-resident hash does not match. The response is now a pure function of the request path: a path-keyed shared cache returns the correct response to every requester for that path, and an attacker cannot synthesise a path whose hash matches arbitrary props.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nFor users unable to upgrade immediately:\n\n- Ensure any intermediary cache keys `/__nuxt_island/*` on the full query string, not on the path alone. This is the recommended configuration regardless.\n- Audit application-authored islands for props flowing into `v-html` / `innerHTML` / similar HTML sinks; treat island props as untrusted user input.\n\n### Note on island authentication\n\n\u003e [!IMPORTANT]\n\u003e It\u0027s important to remember that route middleware does not run when rendering island components, and islands cannot rely on routing-layer auth. Applications gating sensitive data behind page middleware should enforce that auth inside the island\u0027s own data layer (server-only routes, `useRequestEvent` + manual session checks, etc.) rather than relying on the embedding page\u0027s middleware - this was true before this advisory and remains true after it.\n\nA separate advisory addresses `*.server.vue` *pages* registered as `page_\u003crouteName\u003e` islands, where the documented \"middleware doesn\u0027t run for islands\" contract collides with the page\u0027s own `definePageMeta({ middleware })` declaration in a way that constitutes a genuine bug rather than documented behaviour.",
"id": "GHSA-g8wj-3cr3-6w7v",
"modified": "2026-07-08T17:35:09Z",
"published": "2026-05-19T20:03:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/security/advisories/GHSA-g8wj-3cr3-6w7v"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46342"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35077"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Nuxt: `__nuxt_island` endpoint does not bind responses to request props, enabling shared-cache poisoning"
}
GHSA-G8WR-P6F5-FRRV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:29 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:29RSA Archer GRC Platform prior to 6.2.0.5 is affected by stored cross-site scripting via the Source Asset ID field. An authenticated attacker may potentially exploit this to execute arbitrary HTML in the user's browser session in the context of the affected RSA Archer application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-14370"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-11T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "RSA Archer GRC Platform prior to 6.2.0.5 is affected by stored cross-site scripting via the Source Asset ID field. An authenticated attacker may potentially exploit this to execute arbitrary HTML in the user\u0027s browser session in the context of the affected RSA Archer application.",
"id": "GHSA-g8wr-p6f5-frrv",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:29:52Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:29:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-14370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2017/Oct/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039518"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.