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.
68546 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-MXM4-339X-XM9F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-11 00:30 – Updated: 2025-06-11 00:30Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.22 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim’s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-46935"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-10T23:15:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.22 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim\u2019s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.",
"id": "GHSA-mxm4-339x-xm9f",
"modified": "2025-06-11T00:30:39Z",
"published": "2025-06-11T00:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46935"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb25-48.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-MXMX-74F6-XCG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-05 02:49 – Updated: 2022-05-05 02:49Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM InfoSphere Information Server 8.1, 8.5 through FP3, 8.7 through FP2, and 9.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a malformed URL.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-0502"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2013-04-01T19:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM InfoSphere Information Server 8.1, 8.5 through FP3, 8.7 through FP2, and 9.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a malformed URL.",
"id": "GHSA-mxmx-74f6-xcg9",
"modified": "2022-05-05T02:49:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-05T02:49:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-0502"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/82233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1JR45274"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21632556"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MXMX-PWG2-CG2H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-20 06:31 – Updated: 2026-04-20 06:31A flaw has been found in langflow-ai langflow up to 1.8.3. This affects an unknown function of the file src/frontend/src/modals/IOModal/components/chatView/chatMessage/components/edit-message.tsx of the component Frontend React Component Rendering. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-6600"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-20T04:16:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A flaw has been found in langflow-ai langflow up to 1.8.3. This affects an unknown function of the file src/frontend/src/modals/IOModal/components/chatView/chatMessage/components/edit-message.tsx of the component Frontend React Component Rendering. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-mxmx-pwg2-cg2h",
"modified": "2026-04-20T06:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-04-20T06:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-6600"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/chenhouser2025/935aa5d4556264ba408059eec0960b1a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/791923"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/358235"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/358235/cti"
}
],
"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-MXP3-5XQF-Q76W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-12 18:30 – Updated: 2023-07-12 18:30A vulnerability was found in GZ Scripts Vacation Rental Website 1.8 and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /VacationRentalWebsite/property/8/ad-has-principes/ of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument username/title/comment leads to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-233888.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-3642"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-12T17:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in GZ Scripts Vacation Rental Website 1.8 and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /VacationRentalWebsite/property/8/ad-has-principes/ of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument username/title/comment leads to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-233888.",
"id": "GHSA-mxp3-5xqf-q76w",
"modified": "2023-07-12T18:30:39Z",
"published": "2023-07-12T18:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3642"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.233888"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.233888"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MXPC-PX8M-2FQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-23 09:30 – Updated: 2024-05-23 09:30The ShareThis Share Buttons plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's 'sharethis-inline-button' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. 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 an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3648"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-23T07:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ShareThis Share Buttons plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \u0027sharethis-inline-button\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. 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 an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-mxpc-px8m-2fqc",
"modified": "2024-05-23T09:30:28Z",
"published": "2024-05-23T09:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3648"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3089529/sharethis-share-buttons"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/03b37c90-4bb5-4003-a440-3fb57a5c1cae?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-MXPF-QGG6-V3FF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-13 17:21 – Updated: 2026-07-13 17:21Summary
Reflected XSS in the Comment module via the status_comment URL parameter. The parameter accepts attacker-controlled base64-encoded HTML/JavaScript that is decoded server-side and rendered unescaped into the page. Compounded by a second flaw: the checkss anti-forgery token was derived from a site-wide static value (NV_CACHE_PREFIX) instead of a per-session value, making the token reusable across all users and allowing the attack to be delivered via a simple crafted URL.
Details
Vulnerability 1 — Reflected XSS via status_comment
Affected components:
- modules/comment/funcs/main.php — parameter ingestion
- modules/comment/comment.php — decode and template assignment
- themes/*/modules/comment/comment.tpl — raw render
The status_comment GET/POST parameter is sanitised with get_title(), which applies strip_tags(). Because the parameter is intended to carry a base64-encoded string, its character set ([A-Za-z0-9-_,]) passes through strip_tags() unchanged. The value is later decoded with nv_base64_decode() and assigned to the template variable STATUS_COMMENT without any escaping, which the template then renders raw inside a <div>.
The fundamental flaw is ordering: the filter is applied to the encoded form of the data, before decoding, so it is entirely ineffective against whatever the decoded content contains. Any HTML or JavaScript payload, once base64-encoded, survives the filter and executes in the victim's browser.
Vulnerability 2 — Session-independent checkss token
Affected components:
- modules/comment/comment.php — token validation in comment-load and comment-module functions
- modules/comment/funcs/post.php — token validation when posting
- All caller modules that generate a checkss before invoking the comment system (e.g. modules/news, modules/page)
The checkss token required to load the comment block was computed by hashing the resource parameters together with NV_CACHE_PREFIX:
checkss = md5(module + area + id + allowed + NV_CACHE_PREFIX)
NV_CACHE_PREFIX is a static, site-wide constant — identical for every visitor — derived at install time from the site key and server name. The token therefore has the same value for all users viewing the same article and never changes between sessions.
This token is printed into the public HTML of every page that includes a comment block (as a data-checkss attribute on the comment container). Because the token is not session-bound, an attacker can read it from the page source and reuse it in a crafted URL targeting any other user.
The correct pattern, used consistently elsewhere in the codebase (e.g. modules/contact, modules/banners), is to derive the token from NV_CHECK_SESSION:
NV_CHECK_SESSION = md5(NV_CACHE_PREFIX + session_id)
This binds the token to the current session, so a token obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user's session.
Attack scenario
- Attacker opens any article with a comment block and reads the
checkssvalue from the HTML source. - Attacker constructs a payload (e.g. a credential-phishing overlay) and base64-encodes it.
- Attacker delivers the following URL to the victim:
https://<target>/index.php?language=vi&nv=comment&comment_load=1 &module=news&area=<area>&id=<id>&allowed=<allowed> &checkss=<value_from_step_1> &status_comment=<base64_payload> - When the victim opens the URL, the decoded payload renders in their browser within the site's origin, with access to cookies, session storage, and the ability to make authenticated requests.
Verified impact: A phishing overlay form was confirmed to transmit captured plaintext credentials to an attacker-controlled server. No authentication is required at any step.
CSP note: NukeViet's Content-Security-Policy includes script-src 'unsafe-inline' and does not restrict navigation, so the policy does not prevent exploitation.
CVSS 3.1
Vector: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Base Score: 8.2 (High)
| Metric | Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Attack Vector | Network | Exploitable remotely via crafted URL |
| Attack Complexity | Low | checkss readable from public HTML; no special setup required |
| Privileges Required | None | No authentication needed |
| User Interaction | Required | Victim must open the crafted URL |
| Scope | Changed | JavaScript executes in victim's browser, crossing the application security boundary |
| Confidentiality | High | Full plaintext credential capture demonstrated via phishing overlay |
| Integrity | Low | DOM manipulation and authenticated requests possible; no direct backend write access |
| Availability | None | No denial-of-service impact |
Patches
Both root causes are addressed:
Fix 1 — Bind checkss to user session: Replace NV_CACHE_PREFIX with NV_CHECK_SESSION in all locations that generate or validate the comment checkss token — both inside the comment module itself and in any caller module that constructs the token before invoking the comment system. With a session-bound token, a value obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user's session, removing the delivery mechanism for this attack.
Fix 2 — Escape decoded output before rendering: Apply nv_htmlspecialchars() to the result of nv_base64_decode($status_comment) before assigning it to the template. This closes the XSS sink as an independent defence-in-depth measure, remaining effective regardless of how the code path is reached.
Fix 1 alone eliminates the exploitability of this specific vector. Fix 2 is a necessary defence-in-depth layer that closes the underlying sink.
CWE
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 4.5.09"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "nukeviet/nukeviet"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.6.00"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48118"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-13T17:21:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nReflected XSS in the Comment module via the `status_comment` URL parameter. The parameter accepts attacker-controlled base64-encoded HTML/JavaScript that is decoded server-side and rendered unescaped into the page. Compounded by a second flaw: the `checkss` anti-forgery token was derived from a site-wide static value (`NV_CACHE_PREFIX`) instead of a per-session value, making the token reusable across all users and allowing the attack to be delivered via a simple crafted URL.\n\n## Details\n\n### Vulnerability 1 \u2014 Reflected XSS via `status_comment`\n\n**Affected components:**\n- `modules/comment/funcs/main.php` \u2014 parameter ingestion\n- `modules/comment/comment.php` \u2014 decode and template assignment\n- `themes/*/modules/comment/comment.tpl` \u2014 raw render\n\nThe `status_comment` GET/POST parameter is sanitised with `get_title()`, which applies `strip_tags()`. Because the parameter is intended to carry a base64-encoded string, its character set (`[A-Za-z0-9-_,]`) passes through `strip_tags()` unchanged. The value is later decoded with `nv_base64_decode()` and assigned to the template variable `STATUS_COMMENT` **without any escaping**, which the template then renders raw inside a `\u003cdiv\u003e`.\n\nThe fundamental flaw is ordering: the filter is applied to the **encoded form** of the data, before decoding, so it is entirely ineffective against whatever the decoded content contains. Any HTML or JavaScript payload, once base64-encoded, survives the filter and executes in the victim\u0027s browser.\n\n### Vulnerability 2 \u2014 Session-independent `checkss` token\n\n**Affected components:**\n- `modules/comment/comment.php` \u2014 token validation in comment-load and comment-module functions\n- `modules/comment/funcs/post.php` \u2014 token validation when posting\n- All caller modules that generate a `checkss` before invoking the comment system (e.g. `modules/news`, `modules/page`)\n\nThe `checkss` token required to load the comment block was computed by hashing the resource parameters together with `NV_CACHE_PREFIX`:\n\n```\ncheckss = md5(module + area + id + allowed + NV_CACHE_PREFIX)\n```\n\n`NV_CACHE_PREFIX` is a static, site-wide constant \u2014 identical for every visitor \u2014 derived at install time from the site key and server name. The token therefore has the same value for all users viewing the same article and never changes between sessions.\n\nThis token is printed into the public HTML of every page that includes a comment block (as a `data-checkss` attribute on the comment container). Because the token is not session-bound, an attacker can read it from the page source and reuse it in a crafted URL targeting any other user.\n\nThe correct pattern, used consistently elsewhere in the codebase (e.g. `modules/contact`, `modules/banners`), is to derive the token from `NV_CHECK_SESSION`:\n\n```\nNV_CHECK_SESSION = md5(NV_CACHE_PREFIX + session_id)\n```\n\nThis binds the token to the current session, so a token obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user\u0027s session.\n\n## Attack scenario\n\n1. Attacker opens any article with a comment block and reads the `checkss` value from the HTML source.\n2. Attacker constructs a payload (e.g. a credential-phishing overlay) and base64-encodes it.\n3. Attacker delivers the following URL to the victim:\n ```\n https://\u003ctarget\u003e/index.php?language=vi\u0026nv=comment\u0026comment_load=1\n \u0026module=news\u0026area=\u003carea\u003e\u0026id=\u003cid\u003e\u0026allowed=\u003callowed\u003e\n \u0026checkss=\u003cvalue_from_step_1\u003e\n \u0026status_comment=\u003cbase64_payload\u003e\n ```\n4. When the victim opens the URL, the decoded payload renders in their browser within the site\u0027s origin, with access to cookies, session storage, and the ability to make authenticated requests.\n\n**Verified impact:** A phishing overlay form was confirmed to transmit captured plaintext credentials to an attacker-controlled server. No authentication is required at any step.\n\n**CSP note:** NukeViet\u0027s Content-Security-Policy includes `script-src \u0027unsafe-inline\u0027` and does not restrict navigation, so the policy does not prevent exploitation.\n\n## CVSS 3.1\n\n**Vector:** `AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N`\n**Base Score:** **8.2 (High)**\n\n| Metric | Value | Rationale |\n|--------|-------|-----------|\n| Attack Vector | Network | Exploitable remotely via crafted URL |\n| Attack Complexity | Low | `checkss` readable from public HTML; no special setup required |\n| Privileges Required | None | No authentication needed |\n| User Interaction | Required | Victim must open the crafted URL |\n| Scope | Changed | JavaScript executes in victim\u0027s browser, crossing the application security boundary |\n| Confidentiality | **High** | Full plaintext credential capture demonstrated via phishing overlay |\n| Integrity | Low | DOM manipulation and authenticated requests possible; no direct backend write access |\n| Availability | None | No denial-of-service impact |\n\n## Patches\n\nBoth root causes are addressed:\n\n**Fix 1 \u2014 Bind `checkss` to user session:** Replace `NV_CACHE_PREFIX` with `NV_CHECK_SESSION` in all locations that generate or validate the comment `checkss` token \u2014 both inside the comment module itself and in any caller module that constructs the token before invoking the comment system. With a session-bound token, a value obtained by the attacker is invalid for any other user\u0027s session, removing the delivery mechanism for this attack.\n\n**Fix 2 \u2014 Escape decoded output before rendering:** Apply `nv_htmlspecialchars()` to the result of `nv_base64_decode($status_comment)` before assigning it to the template. This closes the XSS sink as an independent defence-in-depth measure, remaining effective regardless of how the code path is reached.\n\nFix 1 alone eliminates the exploitability of this specific vector. Fix 2 is a necessary defence-in-depth layer that closes the underlying sink.\n\n## CWE\n\n- [CWE-79](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html): Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting)\n- [CWE-565](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/565.html): Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking (contributing factor \u2014 session-independent token)",
"id": "GHSA-mxpf-qgg6-v3ff",
"modified": "2026-07-13T17:21:07Z",
"published": "2026-07-13T17:21:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nukeviet/nukeviet/security/advisories/GHSA-mxpf-qgg6-v3ff"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nukeviet/nukeviet"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "NukeViet: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS in Comment Module"
}
GHSA-MXPG-59PV-9MHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:12 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:12Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in SAP Enterprise Portal allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified parameters.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-7365"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-04-10T20:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in SAP Enterprise Portal allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified parameters.",
"id": "GHSA-mxpg-59pv-9mhw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:12:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:12:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-7365"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://service.sap.com/sap/support/notes/1589716"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2013-02/0132.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-8218"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.onapsis.com/get.php?resid=adv_onapsis-2013-003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.onapsis.com/research-advisories.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58155"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MXPV-CF8P-PFPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 19:24 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:29There is a reflected cross site scripting issue in the Esri ArcGIS Server services directory versions 10.9.1 and below that may allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to convince a user to click on a crafted link which could potentially execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim’s browser.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-38198"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "There is a reflected cross site scripting issue in the Esri ArcGIS Server services directory versions 10.9.1 and below that may allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to convince a user to click on a crafted link which could potentially execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim\u2019s browser.",
"id": "GHSA-mxpv-cf8p-pfpr",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:29:48Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T19:24:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-38198"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/administration/administration/arcgis-server-security-2022-update-1-patch"
}
],
"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-MXPX-6XFF-FQW4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-12 06:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:33The Forms for Mailchimp by Optin Cat – Grow Your MailChimp List plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the form color parameters in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.6 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with editor-level access, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7489"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-12T06:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Forms for Mailchimp by Optin Cat \u2013 Grow Your MailChimp List plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the form color parameters in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.6 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with editor-level access, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.",
"id": "GHSA-mxpx-6xff-fqw4",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:33:39Z",
"published": "2024-10-12T06:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7489"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mailchimp-wp/trunk/includes/eoi-functions.php#L166"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mailchimp-wp/trunk/includes/eoi-functions.php#L91"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3198558/mailchimp-wp/trunk/includes/eoi-functions.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/52f9db86-7fed-4b32-8384-3ceb300f9249?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MXPX-P28M-MMWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Teconce Wezido allows DOM-Based XSS.This issue affects Wezido: from n/a through 1.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51836"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-19T17:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Teconce Wezido allows DOM-Based XSS.This issue affects Wezido: from n/a through 1.2.",
"id": "GHSA-mxpx-p28m-mmww",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:31Z",
"published": "2024-11-19T18:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51836"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wezido-elementor-addon-based-on-easy-digital-downloads/vulnerability/wordpress-wezido-plugin-1-2-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/wezido-elementor-addon-based-on-easy-digital-downloads/wordpress-wezido-plugin-1-2-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"
}
]
}
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.