Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-79

Allowed

Improper 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.

68412 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-PMV5-RQXH-9RPV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:35 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:35
VLAI
Details

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in ogp_show.php in Online Guestbook Pro 5.1 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) search or (2) display parameter.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2009-2447"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2009-07-13T17:30:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in ogp_show.php in Online Guestbook Pro 5.1 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) search or (2) display parameter.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmv5-rqxh-9rpv",
  "modified": "2022-05-02T03:35:19Z",
  "published": "2022-05-02T03:35:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-2447"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/35762"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.packetstormsecurity.com/0907-exploits/ogp51-morexss.txt"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-PMVQ-4GG6-P4PX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-01 21:30 – Updated: 2023-02-08 21:30
VLAI
Details

Cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Zoho ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 13 via the comment field when adding a new status comment.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-23077"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-02-01T20:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Zoho ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 13 via the comment field when adding a new status comment.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmvq-4gg6-p4px",
  "modified": "2023-02-08T21:30:21Z",
  "published": "2023-02-01T21:30:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23077"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugbounty.zohocorp.com/bb/#/bug/101000006387693?tab=originator"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.manageengine.com/products/service-desk/CVE-2023-23077.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-PMW4-462F-6FP3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-01 21:30
VLAI
Details

A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the web management interface of TP-Link's TL-SG108PE v5 switch due to improper sanitation of the SYSNAM configuration parameter during configuration file import. An attacker with administrator access can inject malicious script into the device configuration, which may be stored and executed in the administrator’s browser when the affected interface is viewed.    

Successful exploitation may allow session cookie theft, unauthorized configuration changes, or access to sensitive information exposed through the management interface.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-34127"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-29T20:16:22Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A stored\ncross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the web\nmanagement interface of TP-Link\u0027s TL-SG108PE v5 switch due to improper sanitation of the SYSNAM\nconfiguration parameter during configuration file import. An attacker with\nadministrator access can inject malicious script into the device configuration,\nwhich may be stored and executed in the administrator\u2019s browser when the\naffected interface is viewed.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n\nSuccessful\nexploitation may allow session cookie theft, unauthorized configuration\nchanges, or access to sensitive information exposed through the management\ninterface.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmw4-462f-6fp3",
  "modified": "2026-06-01T21:30:41Z",
  "published": "2026-05-29T21:31:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34127"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.tp-link.com/en/support/download/tl-sg108pe/v5/#Firmware"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/download/tl-sg108pe/v5/#Firmware"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/faq/5110"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:H/SC:L/SI:N/SA:L/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-PMW4-PW33-4653

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:02 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:40
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager (Unified CDM) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the web-based management interface of an affected system. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of an affected system. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of the interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-15968"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-11-26T04:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Unified Communications Domain Manager (Unified CDM) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the web-based management interface of an affected system. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of an affected system. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of the interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmw4-pw33-4653",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T02:40:50Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:02:09Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-15968"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20191120-ucdm-xss"
    }
  ],
  "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-PMW5-FCGR-XHVH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:14 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:42
VLAI
Details

Auth. (admin+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Tips and Tricks HQ, Ruhul Amin Category Specific RSS feed Subscription plugin <= v2.2 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-22685"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-05-12T16:15:09Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Auth. (admin+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Tips and Tricks HQ, Ruhul Amin Category Specific RSS feed Subscription plugin \u003c=\u00a0v2.2 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmw5-fcgr-xhvh",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T05:42:43Z",
  "published": "2023-07-06T21:14:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22685"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/category-specific-rss-feed-menu/wordpress-category-specific-rss-feed-subscription-plugin-v2-2-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
    }
  ],
  "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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PMW6-MG69-65JH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-15 06:30 – Updated: 2024-10-15 06:30
VLAI
Details

NewType WebEIP v3.0 does not properly validate user input, allowing a remote attacker with regular privileges to insert JavaScript into specific parameters, resulting in a Reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attack. The affected product is no longer maintained. It is recommended to upgrade to the new product.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-9969"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-10-15T04:15:04Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "NewType WebEIP v3.0 does not properly validate user input, allowing a remote attacker with regular privileges to insert JavaScript into specific parameters, resulting in a Reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attack. The affected product is no longer maintained. It is recommended to upgrade to the new product.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmw6-mg69-65jh",
  "modified": "2024-10-15T06:30:31Z",
  "published": "2024-10-15T06:30:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-9969"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/en/cp-139-8135-ce1e6-2.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.twcert.org.tw/tw/cp-132-8134-c476d-1.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-PMWC-GMXJ-Q9QF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:38 – Updated: 2025-04-09 03:52
VLAI
Details

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in prim.htm on the D-Link DI-604 router allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the rf parameter.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2008-1258"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2008-03-10T17:44:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in prim.htm on the D-Link DI-604 router allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the rf parameter.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmwc-gmxj-q9qf",
  "modified": "2025-04-09T03:52:21Z",
  "published": "2022-05-01T23:38:14Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-1258"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/41122"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/29531"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.gnucitizen.org/projects/router-hacking-challenge"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/489009/100/0/threaded"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/28439"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-PMWG-H2C7-W359

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 15:32 – Updated: 2026-06-26 15:32
VLAI
Details

Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in ListingPro <= 2.9.11 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-56046"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-26T15:16:44Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in ListingPro \u003c= 2.9.11 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmwg-h2c7-w359",
  "modified": "2026-06-26T15:32:16Z",
  "published": "2026-06-26T15:32:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56046"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/theme/listingpro/vulnerability/wordpress-listingpro-theme-2-9-11-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-PMWM-PJ73-5HR6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-10 09:31 – Updated: 2026-08-11 18:30
VLAI
Details

The Autopay WordPress plugin before 5.0.1 does not perform any capability or nonce check before saving a styling option from a public request, and does not escape that value when it is later output on the checkout page, allowing unauthenticated attackers to store JavaScript that executes in the browser of any user, including administrators, who loads the checkout page.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-14293"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-10T07:16:47Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The Autopay WordPress plugin before 5.0.1 does not perform any capability or nonce check before saving a styling option from a public request, and does not escape that value when it is later output on the checkout page, allowing unauthenticated attackers to store JavaScript that executes in the browser of any user, including administrators, who loads the checkout page.",
  "id": "GHSA-pmwm-pj73-5hr6",
  "modified": "2026-08-11T18:30:40Z",
  "published": "2026-08-10T09:31:21Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14293"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/99fa208c-1a6f-4379-847c-388b9cec349e"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-PMWW-V6C9-7P83

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-01 15:49 – Updated: 2024-04-02 18:53
VLAI
Summary
Piccolo Admin's raw SVG loading may lead to complete data compromise from admin page
Details

Summary

Piccolo's admin panel provides the ability to upload media files and view them within the admin panel. If SVG is an allowed file type for upload; the default; an attacker can upload an SVG which when loaded under certain contexts allows for arbitrary access to the admin page.

This access allows the following actions for example: - The ability for an attacker to gain access to all data stored within the admin page - The ability for an attacker to make any action within the admin page such as creating, modifying or deleting table records

As the SVG is executed from the context of an authenticated admin session, any actions they may be able to make can be made by the attacker.

N.b. The relevant session cookies are inaccessible from JavaScript due to httponly being set so all exploits must be present within the SVG file

PoC

Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability.

Currently, this requires the ability for a user to have access to an administrators account in order to upload the malicious file for simplicity sake. I can however imagine situations where general end users have the ability to upload files which can later be managed via the admin page.

See the following repository: Piccolo XSS

  1. Clone the repo
  2. Run all migrations & create an admin user
  3. Run app.py as a FastAPI application
  4. Login to the admin page
  5. Create a new task and upload the following file to see basic execution: payloads/basic_xss.svg
  6. Click the SVG to view it inline
  7. Click "Open image in new tab"
  8. Observe the XSS triggering

Fig 1: An example XSS payload executing Example XSS

Extended PoC

This repo also includes an extended PoC which sends the Task table to an attacker controlled server.

  1. Run exhil_server.py as a FastAPI application
  2. Upload the following payload: payloads/exhil.svg
  3. Open the SVG in a new tab and observe the data being sent to the attacker controlled server

Fig 2: An example screenshot from the attacker controlled server showing incoming data Example data sent to attacker server

Further, the repo includes a list of routes the admin panel exposes which could be used to automate table discovery and compromise in a more sophisticated PoC.

Impact

What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?

All applications with the following conditions present are affected: - An enabled admin panel - A model which features media upload that allows for SVG files

Further, if the site is behind a proxy of sorts it must not set the relevant security headers.

Further thoughts

While this issue has been raised against the piccolo_admin repository, it technically exists for all file uploads within a piccolo website if an end developer chooses to include the ability to view SVG files inline within their application. Further thought should likely be given to either or both of the following: - Ensuring the documentation for media handling includes some form of warning/recommendation relating to this. Ideally I think it should just provide an example of a code fix and link to security headers to test their own application - Modifying the Piccolo template generation to include the relevant security headers by default. These include things such as xss protection and a content security policy. This site is a great resource for testing the security headers set on a website

Given the need to allow end developers the freedom to allow for SVG upload, removing the ability to upload them entirely is likely out of the picture.

This could also be resolved by making attempts to view attachments in a new tab set the relevant content-disposition header and force the browser to download the file instead of rendering it inline of the website.

What are your thoughts on the approach to take to mitigate this?

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "piccolo-admin"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.2.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.3.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-30248"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-01T15:49:22Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-04-02T15:15:53Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nPiccolo\u0027s admin panel provides the ability to upload media files and view them within the admin panel. If SVG is an allowed file type for upload; the default; an attacker can upload an SVG which when loaded under certain contexts allows for arbitrary access to the admin page. \n\nThis access allows the following actions for example:\n- The ability for an attacker to gain access to all data stored within the admin page\n- The ability for an attacker to make any action within the admin page such as creating, modifying or deleting table records\n\nAs the SVG is executed from the context of an authenticated admin session, any actions they may be able to make can be made by the attacker. \n\n*N.b. The relevant session cookies are inaccessible from JavaScript due to httponly being set so all exploits must be present within the SVG file*\n\n### PoC\n_Complete instructions, including specific configuration details, to reproduce the vulnerability._\n\nCurrently, this requires the ability for a user to have access to an administrators account in order to upload the malicious file for simplicity sake. I can however imagine situations where general end users have the ability to upload files which can later be managed via the admin page. \n\nSee the following repository: [Piccolo XSS](https://github.com/Skelmis/piccolo_xss)\n\n1. Clone the repo\n2. Run all migrations \u0026 create an admin user\n3. Run `app.py` as a FastAPI application\n4. Login to the admin page\n5. Create a new task and upload the following file to see basic execution: `payloads/basic_xss.svg`\n6. Click the SVG to view it inline \n7. Click \"Open image in new tab\"\n8. Observe the XSS triggering\n\n\n*Fig 1: An example XSS payload executing*\n![Example XSS](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/47520067/300751626-ba09c524-ffd8-43b8-963e-9bc6803e3388.png)\n\n\n##### Extended PoC\n\nThis repo also includes an extended PoC which sends the `Task` table to an attacker controlled server.\n\n1. Run `exhil_server.py` as a FastAPI application\n2. Upload the following payload: `payloads/exhil.svg`\n3. Open the SVG in a new tab and observe the data being sent to the attacker controlled server\n\n*Fig 2: An example screenshot from the attacker controlled server showing incoming data*\n![Example data sent to attacker server](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/47520067/300746553-9895217b-b509-4e03-b3bc-9ae730450e32.png)\n\nFurther, the repo includes a list of routes the admin panel exposes which could be used to automate table discovery and compromise in a more sophisticated PoC.\n\n### Impact\n_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_\n\nAll applications with the following conditions present are affected:\n- An enabled admin panel\n- A model which features media upload that allows for SVG files\n\nFurther, if the site is behind a proxy of sorts it must not set the relevant security headers.\n\n### Further thoughts\n\nWhile this issue has been raised against the `piccolo_admin` repository, it technically exists for all file uploads within a piccolo website if an end developer chooses to include the ability to view SVG files inline within their application. Further thought should likely be given to either or both of the following:\n- Ensuring the documentation for media handling includes some form of warning/recommendation relating to this. Ideally I think it should just provide an example of a code fix and link to security headers to test their own application\n- Modifying the Piccolo template generation to include the relevant security headers by default. These include things such as xss protection and a content security policy. [This](https://securityheaders.com/) site is a great resource for testing the security headers set on a website\n\nGiven the need to allow end developers the freedom to allow for SVG upload, removing the ability to upload them entirely is likely out of the picture. \n\nThis could also be resolved by making attempts to view attachments in a new tab set the relevant content-disposition header and force the browser to download the file instead of rendering it inline of the website.\n\nWhat are your thoughts on the approach to take to mitigate this?",
  "id": "GHSA-pmww-v6c9-7p83",
  "modified": "2024-04-02T18:53:44Z",
  "published": "2024-04-01T15:49:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/piccolo-orm/piccolo_admin/security/advisories/GHSA-pmww-v6c9-7p83"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-30248"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/piccolo-orm/piccolo_admin/commit/c419575c2467959d906154084d305648eb2b8faf"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/piccolo-orm/piccolo_admin"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Piccolo Admin\u0027s raw SVG loading may lead to complete data compromise from admin page"
}

Mitigation MIT-4
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Implementation

With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.

Mitigation MIT-31
Implementation

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Operation

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
Operation Implementation

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.