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.
68321 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-PRC3-VJFX-VHM9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-16 00:00 – Updated: 2025-07-28 13:10All versions of package angular are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) due to insecure page caching in the Internet Explorer browser, which allows interpolation of <textarea> elements.
NPM package angular is deprecated. Those who want to receive security updates should use the actively maintained package @angular/core.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "angular"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25869"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-20T00:41:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-15T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "All versions of package angular are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) due to insecure page caching in the Internet Explorer browser, which allows interpolation of `\u003ctextarea\u003e` elements.\n\nNPM package [angular](https://www.npmjs.com/package/angular) is deprecated. Those who want to receive security updates should use the actively maintained package [@angular/core](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@angular/core).",
"id": "GHSA-prc3-vjfx-vhm9",
"modified": "2025-07-28T13:10:19Z",
"published": "2022-07-16T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25869"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://glitch.com/edit/%23%21/angular-repro-textarea-xss"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://neverendingsupport.github.io/angularjs-poc-cve-2022-25869"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-DOTNET-ANGULARJS-10771617"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-DOTNET-ANGULARJSCORE-6084031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWER-2949783"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWERGITHUBANGULAR-2949784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-2949782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-ANGULAR-2949781"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWER-2949783"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWERGITHUBANGULAR-2949784"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-2949782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-ANGULAR-2949781"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/package/angular"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Angular (deprecated package) Cross-site Scripting"
}
GHSA-PRC5-4JVW-RFXV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-08 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in GiveWP allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects GiveWP: from n/a through 3.12.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-35679"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-08T15:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in GiveWP allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects GiveWP: from n/a through 3.12.0.",
"id": "GHSA-prc5-4jvw-rfxv",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:31:47Z",
"published": "2024-06-08T15:31:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-35679"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/give/vulnerability/wordpress-givewp-plugin-3-12-0-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/give/wordpress-givewp-plugin-3-12-0-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PRC6-QWC4-RR5X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 18:33 – Updated: 2022-05-01 18:33Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox before 2.0, when UTF-7 document content is rendered directly in UTF-7, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a gopher URI that uses single quote characters to delimit a literal string within an XSS sequence, a related issue to CVE-2007-5415.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2007-5414"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2007-10-12T21:17:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox before 2.0, when UTF-7 document content is rendered directly in UTF-7, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a gopher URI that uses single quote characters to delimit a literal string within an XSS sequence, a related issue to CVE-2007-5415.",
"id": "GHSA-prc6-qwc4-rr5x",
"modified": "2022-05-01T18:33:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T18:33:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-5414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/43670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3216"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/482006/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-PRC8-XW56-QX9J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-27 18:32 – Updated: 2023-03-04 06:30The Olevmedia Shortcodes WordPress plugin through 1.1.9 does not validate and escape some of its shortcode attributes before outputting them back in a page/post where the shortcode is embed, which could allow users with the contributor role and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0168"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-27T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Olevmedia Shortcodes WordPress plugin through 1.1.9 does not validate and escape some of its shortcode attributes before outputting them back in a page/post where the shortcode is embed, which could allow users with the contributor role and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-prc8-xw56-qx9j",
"modified": "2023-03-04T06:30:21Z",
"published": "2023-02-27T18:32:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0168"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/e854efee-16fc-4379-9e66-d2883e01fb32"
}
],
"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-PRCJ-VVJ7-6GM4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-19 09:33 – Updated: 2025-02-26 00:32A vulnerability exists in ChurchCRM 5.13.0 that allows an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in a victim's browser via Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the EditEventAttendees.php page. This requires Administration privileges and affects the EID parameter. The flaw allows an attacker to steal session cookies, perform actions on behalf of an authenticated user, and gain unauthorized access to the application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-1024"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-19T09:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability exists in ChurchCRM 5.13.0\u00a0that allows an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in a victim\u0027s browser via Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the EditEventAttendees.php\u00a0page. This requires Administration privileges and affects the EID parameter. The flaw allows an attacker to steal session cookies, perform actions on behalf of an authenticated user, and gain unauthorized access to the application.",
"id": "GHSA-prcj-vvj7-6gm4",
"modified": "2025-02-26T00:32:18Z",
"published": "2025-02-19T09:33:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1024"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ChurchCRM/CRM/issues/7250"
}
],
"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:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:H/SC:H/SI:L/SA:H/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:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:L/U:Amber",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-PRF3-VG4F-X2X2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:55 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:55Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Google Chrome before 27.0.1453.93 allow user-assisted remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors involving a (1) drag-and-drop or (2) copy-and-paste operation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-2849"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2013-05-22T13:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Google Chrome before 27.0.1453.93 allow user-assisted remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors involving a (1) drag-and-drop or (2) copy-and-paste operation.",
"id": "GHSA-prf3-vg4f-x2x2",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:55:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:55:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-2849"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=171392"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A16753"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2013/05/stable-channel-release.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2013/dsa-2695"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-PRFF-6J8Q-VRV7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-28 22:15 – Updated: 2022-02-03 21:01There is a persistent XSS Vulnerability exsists in the checkout page where we can able to execute any javascription in the last name field
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "microweber/microweber"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0379"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-27T18:41:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-26T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "There is a persistent XSS Vulnerability exsists in the checkout page where we can able to execute any javascription in the last name field",
"id": "GHSA-prff-6j8q-vrv7",
"modified": "2022-02-03T21:01:48Z",
"published": "2022-01-28T22:15:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0379"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/microweber/microweber/commit/f017cbfbd5c4f097d2c78c5e15b6c8a9da479d7b"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/microweber/microweber"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/933f94b8-c5e7-4c3a-92e0-4d1577d5fee6"
}
],
"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": "Cross-site Scripting in microweber"
}
GHSA-PRFF-6VWQ-GF23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-19 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-29 15:31HTML injection in pgAdmin 4's cloud deployment module. The verify_credentials, deploy, regions, and update-server endpoints under /rds/, /azure/, /google/, and the top-level /cloud/ blueprint propagated AWS / Azure / Google SDK exception text — and the related file-resolution and database-commit exception text — into the JSON response body (the info and errormsg fields) without HTML-encoding. The Cloud Wizard frontend rendered these strings through html-react-parser, so an attacker-influenced exception message embedded structural HTML directly into the wizard's DOM.
The reported entry point is /rds/verify_credentials/. An authenticated pgAdmin user submits a crafted access_key whose value contains an payload; AWS STS rejects the credential with an IncompleteSignature exception whose text quotes the access_key verbatim; the pgAdmin backend forwards that text into the JSON info field; the Cloud Wizard's FormFooterMessage parses it as HTML. The browser fetches the iframe's src from an attacker-controlled host, and JavaScript executing inside the cross-origin iframe writes to parent.location, redirecting the victim's pgAdmin tab. Because the injection renders inside pgAdmin's own interface, X-Frame-Options and Content-Security-Policy frame-ancestors do not mitigate it. Baseline impact is self-targeted (the same user who supplied the payload sees the injection); escalation against other authenticated users requires an additional cross-site request-forgery primitive capable of submitting the malformed credential request with a valid X-pgA-CSRFToken in the victim's browser context.
The same unsanitised-error-into-JSON pattern was present across multiple sibling endpoints — Azure's check_cluster_name_availability, every Google endpoint that surfaces SDK errors (verification_ack, projects, regions, instance_types, database_versions, the verify_credentials path-resolution branches), the central /deploy endpoint that bubbles str(e) from deploy_on_rds / deploy_on_azure / deploy_on_google, and update_cloud_server which surfaces the str(e) from a failing db.session.commit — all of which are now covered.
Fix HTML-escapes every external/SDK exception string at the endpoint sink via a new shared sanitize_external_text helper (HTML escape with control-character strip), promoted out of the psycopg3 driver into web/pgadmin/utils/text_sanitize.py. The Cloud Wizard frontend additionally renders its FormFooterMessage in plain-text mode for backend-derived strings, so the value is never parsed as HTML even if a future sink forgets the escape.
This issue affects pgAdmin 4: from 6.6 before 9.16.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-12047"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-19T00:16:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "HTML injection in pgAdmin 4\u0027s cloud deployment module. The verify_credentials, deploy, regions, and update-server endpoints under /rds/, /azure/, /google/, and the top-level /cloud/ blueprint propagated AWS / Azure / Google SDK exception text \u2014 and the related file-resolution and database-commit exception text \u2014 into the JSON response body (the info and errormsg fields) without HTML-encoding. The Cloud Wizard frontend rendered these strings through html-react-parser, so an attacker-influenced exception message embedded structural HTML directly into the wizard\u0027s DOM.\n\nThe reported entry point is /rds/verify_credentials/. An authenticated pgAdmin user submits a crafted access_key whose value contains an \u003ciframe/src=...\u003e payload; AWS STS rejects the credential with an IncompleteSignature exception whose text quotes the access_key verbatim; the pgAdmin backend forwards that text into the JSON info field; the Cloud Wizard\u0027s FormFooterMessage parses it as HTML. The browser fetches the iframe\u0027s src from an attacker-controlled host, and JavaScript executing inside the cross-origin iframe writes to parent.location, redirecting the victim\u0027s pgAdmin tab. Because the injection renders inside pgAdmin\u0027s own interface, X-Frame-Options and Content-Security-Policy frame-ancestors do not mitigate it. Baseline impact is self-targeted (the same user who supplied the payload sees the injection); escalation against other authenticated users requires an additional cross-site request-forgery primitive capable of submitting the malformed credential request with a valid X-pgA-CSRFToken in the victim\u0027s browser context.\n\nThe same unsanitised-error-into-JSON pattern was present across multiple sibling endpoints \u2014 Azure\u0027s check_cluster_name_availability, every Google endpoint that surfaces SDK errors (verification_ack, projects, regions, instance_types, database_versions, the verify_credentials path-resolution branches), the central /deploy endpoint that bubbles str(e) from deploy_on_rds / deploy_on_azure / deploy_on_google, and update_cloud_server which surfaces the str(e) from a failing db.session.commit \u2014 all of which are now covered.\n\nFix HTML-escapes every external/SDK exception string at the endpoint sink via a new shared sanitize_external_text helper (HTML escape with control-character strip), promoted out of the psycopg3 driver into web/pgadmin/utils/text_sanitize.py. The Cloud Wizard frontend additionally renders its FormFooterMessage in plain-text mode for backend-derived strings, so the value is never parsed as HTML even if a future sink forgets the escape.\n\nThis issue affects pgAdmin 4: from 6.6 before 9.16.",
"id": "GHSA-prff-6vwq-gf23",
"modified": "2026-06-29T15:31:59Z",
"published": "2026-06-19T00:31:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-12047"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/issues/10069"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/commit/60d149864b5fdd99675754c7996637737a24fce3"
}
],
"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:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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-PRFP-RC42-5739
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:36 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:36Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) exists in ZoneMinder through 1.32.3 as the view 'events' (events.php) insecurely displays the limit parameter value, without applying any proper output filtration. This issue exists because of the function sortHeader() in functions.php, which insecurely returns the value of the limit query string parameter without applying any filtration.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7337"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-02-04T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) exists in ZoneMinder through 1.32.3 as the view \u0027events\u0027 (events.php) insecurely displays the limit parameter value, without applying any proper output filtration. This issue exists because of the function sortHeader() in functions.php, which insecurely returns the value of the limit query string parameter without applying any filtration.",
"id": "GHSA-prfp-rc42-5739",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:36:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:36:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7337"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZoneMinder/zoneminder/issues/2456"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PRFW-PC69-2JPQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-22 15:31 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in leadbi LeadBI Plugin for WordPress leadbi allows Stored XSS.This issue affects LeadBI Plugin for WordPress: from n/a through <= 1.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49960"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-22T15:15:42Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in leadbi LeadBI Plugin for WordPress leadbi allows Stored XSS.This issue affects LeadBI Plugin for WordPress: from n/a through \u003c= 1.7.",
"id": "GHSA-prfw-pc69-2jpq",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:31:25Z",
"published": "2025-10-22T15:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49960"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/leadbi/vulnerability/wordpress-leadbi-plugin-for-wordpress-plugin-1-7-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/leadbi/vulnerability/wordpress-leadbi-plugin-for-wordpress-plugin-1-7-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/leadbi/vulnerability/wordpress-leadbi-plugin-for-wordpress-plugin-1-7-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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.