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.
67677 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-QJR9-XQ6H-8WFR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-22 21:32 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:33The LSX Tour Operator plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via SVG File uploads in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.9 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Author-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses the SVG file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-9851"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-21T11:15:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The LSX Tour Operator plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via SVG File uploads in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.9 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Author-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses the SVG file.",
"id": "GHSA-qjr9-xq6h-8wfr",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:33:40Z",
"published": "2024-11-22T21:32:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-9851"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3218947%40tour-operator\u0026new=3218947%40tour-operator\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/tour-operator/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/08ef71da-50f2-4f7e-8a23-23adbabee09d?source=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"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJRH-FGGH-8WWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-04 06:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:33The Footnotes Made Easy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via plugin settings in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.7 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11733"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-04T05:15:57Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Footnotes Made Easy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via plugin settings in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.7 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-qjrh-fggh-8wwp",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:33:08Z",
"published": "2025-11-04T06:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11733"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/footnotes-made-easy/tags/3.0.7/footnotes-made-easy.php#L112"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3388488"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/c6f6662f-1013-4de1-9091-1ac330260eed?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJRJ-CVJQ-FXJR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:38 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:38Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in WordPress 2.3.2 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) inviteemail parameter in an invite action to wp-admin/users.php and the (2) to parameter in a sent action to wp-admin/invites.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-1304"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-03-12T17:44:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in WordPress 2.3.2 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) inviteemail parameter in an invite action to wp-admin/users.php and the (2) to parameter in a sent action to wp-admin/invites.php.",
"id": "GHSA-qjrj-cvjq-fxjr",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:38:45Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:38:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-1304"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/41055"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/41056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3732"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitytracker.com/id?1019564"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.hackerscenter.com/index.php?/Latest-posts/114-WordPress-Multiple-Cross-Site-Scripting-Vulnerabilities.html?id=114"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/489241/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/28139"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-QJRP-M589-P428
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:49 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:49Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Zoomify module 5.x before 5.x-2.2 and 6.x before 6.x-1.4, a module for Drupal, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the node title.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-3918"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-11-09T17:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Zoomify module 5.x before 5.x-2.2 and 6.x before 6.x-1.4, a module for Drupal, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the node title.",
"id": "GHSA-qjrp-m589-p428",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:49:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:49:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-3918"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/54155"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupal.org/node/623434"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupal.org/node/623436"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupal.org/node/623678"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/59671"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/37263"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36930"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-QJV7-4MWP-QMW5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:19 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:19A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in inc/core/class.dc.core.php in the media manager in Dotclear through 2.14.1 allows remote authenticated users to upload HTML content containing an XSS payload with the file extension .ahtml.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-16358"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-09-02T22:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in inc/core/class.dc.core.php in the media manager in Dotclear through 2.14.1 allows remote authenticated users to upload HTML content containing an XSS payload with the file extension .ahtml.",
"id": "GHSA-qjv7-4mwp-qmw5",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:19:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:19:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-16358"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hg.dotclear.org/dotclear/rev/d4841d6d65d6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJV7-627W-8QJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 20:13 – Updated: 2026-05-13 14:20Summary
Description
A Cross-Site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Go Fiber allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary HTML/JavaScript by supplying Accept: text/html on any request whose handler passes attacker-influenced data to the AutoFormat() feature. This affects github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 (DefaultRes.AutoFormat) through version 3.1.0 and github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2 (Ctx.Format) through version 2.52.12.
The developer opts into content negotiation by calling AutoFormat(), but does not opt into raw HTML emission for a particular request; Fiber chooses that branch from attacker-controlled Accept. Five of the six branches of the same method already escape. JSON, XML, MsgPack, and CBOR all route through encoders that neutralize markup; the txt branch emits text/plain and cannot execute. The html branch is the sole outlier in a method whose name (AutoFormat) and symmetrical structure actively telegraph "safe, format-agnostic reply."
Details
The issue resides in res.go within (*DefaultRes).AutoFormat(). The method negotiates against the request Accept header, selects one of html | json | txt | xml | msgpack | cbor, and serializes the caller-supplied body accordingly.
The "html" branch concatenates the stringified body directly into HTML markup with no output encoding:
- accept comes from r.c.Accepts(...), i.e. is fully attacker-controlled. An attacker can force the "html" branch on any AutoFormat() call regardless of which format the developer tested against.
- b is produced from body via direct assignment (string / []byte) or fmt.Sprintf("%v", body). No html.EscapeString is applied.
- The resulting string is sent as text/html; charset=utf-8, so browsers render it as active HTML.
// res.go
func (r *DefaultRes) AutoFormat(body any) error {
accept := r.c.DefaultReq.Accepts("html", "json", "txt", "xml", "msgpack", "cbor")
r.Type(accept)
var b string
switch val := body.(type) {
case string:
b = val
case []byte:
b = r.c.app.toString(val)
default:
b = fmt.Sprintf("%v", val)
}
switch accept {
case "txt":
return r.SendString(b)
case "json":
return r.JSON(body)
case "xml":
return r.XML(body)
case "html":
return r.SendString("<p>" + b + "</p>")
case "msgpack":
return r.MsgPack(body)
case "cbor":
return r.CBOR(body)
}
return r.SendString(b)
}
Impact
This impacts all current v3 releases ≤ 3.1.0 containing DefaultRes.AutoFormat, and all current v2 releases ≤ 2.52.12 where the identical "<p>" + b + "</p>" construction exists in (*Ctx).Format(). Exploitation requires that an application call c.AutoFormat(v) where v (or a field stringified by %v) contains request-influenced data.
A handler that uses AutoFormat() to serve multiple representations of the same data can be turned into an HTML XSS sink when the client sends Accept: text/html, even if the developer only tested the JSON path.
This may result in:
- Reflected XSS in the application's origin via any request-derived value reaching AutoFormat.
- Stored XSS where the reflected value originates from persisted input later passed to AutoFormat.
Proposed Patch
The injection surface is r.Type("html") followed by r.SendString(b) with unescaped caller data, where it constructs markup on the caller's behalf around a value whose HTML-ness the caller did not declare. A few options:
- AutoFormat() should treat body as data, not markup, in the "html" branch and escape it before concatenating it into the framework-generated <p> wrapper. Callers that need raw negotiated HTML should use Format() with an explicit HTML handler.
- Introduce a sibling method that escapes, leave AutoFormat alone for backward compatibility.
HTML-escape the value in the "html" branch before concatenating it into the <p> wrapper.
import "html"
// ...
case "html":
return r.SendString("<p>" + html.EscapeString(b) + "</p>")
html.EscapeString escapes <, >, &, ', ", which is sufficient for an element-text context. Apply the same change to v2's (*Ctx).Format().
Proof of Concept
# Create project directory
mkdir fiber-xss-poc && cd fiber-xss-poc
# Initialize Go module
go mod init fiber-xss-poc
# Install Fiber v3
go get github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3
# Create the PoC file
cat > main.go << 'EOF'
package main
import (
"github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3"
)
type User struct {
ID int `json:"id"`
Name string `json:"name"`
}
func main() {
app := fiber.New()
app.Get("/api/user", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {
user := User{
ID: 1,
Name: c.Query("name", "anonymous"),
}
return c.AutoFormat(user)
})
app.Listen(":3000")
}
EOF
# Run it
go run main.go
}
Benign JSON
curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=Alice' -H 'Accept: application/json'
{"id":1,"name":"Alice"}
HTML sink enables XSS
curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=<script>alert(document.domain)</script>' -H 'Accept: text/html'
<p>{1 <script>alert(document.domain)</script>}</p>
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.1.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.52.12"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.52.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42554"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-05T20:13:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-11T23:19:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n**Description**\n\nA Cross-Site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Go Fiber allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary HTML/JavaScript by supplying `Accept: text/html` on any request whose handler passes attacker-influenced data to the AutoFormat() feature. This affects `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3` (`DefaultRes.AutoFormat`) through version 3.1.0 and `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2` (`Ctx.Format`) through version 2.52.12. \n\nThe developer opts into content negotiation by calling AutoFormat(), but does not opt into raw HTML emission for a particular request; Fiber chooses that branch from attacker-controlled Accept. Five of the six branches of the same method already escape. `JSON`, `XML`, `MsgPack`, and `CBOR` all route through encoders that neutralize markup; the txt branch emits `text/plain` and cannot execute. The html branch is the sole outlier in a method whose name (`AutoFormat`) and symmetrical structure actively telegraph \"safe, format-agnostic reply.\"\n\n## Details\nThe issue resides in `res.go` within `(*DefaultRes).AutoFormat()`. The method negotiates against the request Accept header, selects one of `html | json | txt | xml | msgpack | cbor`, and serializes the caller-supplied body accordingly.\n\nThe \"html\" branch concatenates the stringified body directly into HTML markup with no output encoding:\n- `accept` comes from `r.c.Accepts(...)`, i.e. is fully attacker-controlled. An attacker can force the \"html\" branch on any `AutoFormat()` call regardless of which format the developer tested against.\n- `b` is produced from `body` via direct assignment (`string` / `[]byte`) or `fmt.Sprintf(\"%v\", body)`. No `html.EscapeString` is applied.\n- The resulting string is sent as `text/html; charset=utf-8`, so browsers render it as active HTML.\n\n```go\n// res.go\nfunc (r *DefaultRes) AutoFormat(body any) error {\n\n accept := r.c.DefaultReq.Accepts(\"html\", \"json\", \"txt\", \"xml\", \"msgpack\", \"cbor\")\n\n r.Type(accept)\n var b string\n switch val := body.(type) {\n case string:\n b = val\n case []byte:\n b = r.c.app.toString(val)\n default:\n b = fmt.Sprintf(\"%v\", val)\n }\n\n switch accept {\n case \"txt\":\n return r.SendString(b)\n case \"json\":\n return r.JSON(body)\n case \"xml\":\n return r.XML(body)\n case \"html\":\n return r.SendString(\"\u003cp\u003e\" + b + \"\u003c/p\u003e\")\n case \"msgpack\":\n return r.MsgPack(body)\n case \"cbor\":\n return r.CBOR(body)\n }\n return r.SendString(b)\n}\n```\n## Impact\n\nThis impacts all current v3 releases \u2264 3.1.0 containing `DefaultRes.AutoFormat`, and all current v2 releases \u2264 2.52.12 where the identical `\"\u003cp\u003e\" + b + \"\u003c/p\u003e\"` construction exists in `(*Ctx).Format()`. Exploitation requires that an application call `c.AutoFormat(v)` where `v` (or a field stringified by `%v`) contains request-influenced data.\n\nA handler that uses `AutoFormat()` to serve multiple representations of the same data can be turned into an HTML XSS sink when the client sends `Accept: text/html`, even if the developer only tested the JSON path.\n\nThis may result in:\n- **Reflected XSS** in the application\u0027s origin via any request-derived value reaching `AutoFormat`.\n- **Stored XSS** where the reflected value originates from persisted input later passed to `AutoFormat`.\n\n## Proposed Patch\n\nThe injection surface is `r.Type(\"html\")` followed by `r.SendString(b)` with unescaped caller data, where it constructs markup on the caller\u0027s behalf around a value whose HTML-ness the caller did not declare. A few options:\n- `AutoFormat()` should treat `body` as data, not markup, in the `\"html\"` branch and escape it before concatenating it into the framework-generated `\u003cp\u003e` wrapper. Callers that need raw negotiated HTML should use `Format()` with an explicit HTML handler.\n- Introduce a sibling method that escapes, leave `AutoFormat` alone for backward compatibility.\n\nHTML-escape the value in the \"html\" branch before concatenating it into the `\u003cp\u003e` wrapper.\n```go\nimport \"html\"\n\n// ...\ncase \"html\":\n return r.SendString(\"\u003cp\u003e\" + html.EscapeString(b) + \"\u003c/p\u003e\")\n```\n\n`html.EscapeString` escapes `\u003c`, `\u003e`, `\u0026`, `\u0027`, `\"`, which is sufficient for an element-text context. Apply the same change to v2\u0027s `(*Ctx).Format()`.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```bash\n# Create project directory\nmkdir fiber-xss-poc \u0026\u0026 cd fiber-xss-poc\n\n# Initialize Go module\ngo mod init fiber-xss-poc\n\n# Install Fiber v3\ngo get github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3\n\n# Create the PoC file\ncat \u003e main.go \u003c\u003c \u0027EOF\u0027\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3\"\n)\n\ntype User struct {\n\tID int `json:\"id\"`\n\tName string `json:\"name\"`\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\tapp := fiber.New()\n\t\n\tapp.Get(\"/api/user\", func(c fiber.Ctx) error {\n\t\tuser := User{\n\t\t\tID: 1,\n\t\t\tName: c.Query(\"name\", \"anonymous\"),\n\t\t}\n\t\treturn c.AutoFormat(user)\n\t})\n\n\tapp.Listen(\":3000\")\n}\nEOF\n\n# Run it\ngo run main.go\n}\n```\n\nBenign JSON\n```bash\ncurl -s \u0027http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=Alice\u0027 -H \u0027Accept: application/json\u0027\n{\"id\":1,\"name\":\"Alice\"}\n```\n\nHTML sink enables XSS\n```bash\ncurl -s \u0027http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=\u003cscript\u003ealert(document.domain)\u003c/script\u003e\u0027 -H \u0027Accept: text/html\u0027\n\u003cp\u003e{1 \u003cscript\u003ealert(document.domain)\u003c/script\u003e}\u003c/p\u003e\n```",
"id": "GHSA-qjv7-627w-8qjv",
"modified": "2026-05-13T14:20:14Z",
"published": "2026-05-05T20:13:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gofiber/fiber/security/advisories/GHSA-qjv7-627w-8qjv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42554"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/gofiber/fiber"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Fiber vulnerable to XSS in AutoFormat Content Negotiation"
}
GHSA-QJV9-WMRF-56GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-29 06:30 – Updated: 2024-08-01 15:32The Ultimate Blocks WordPress plugin before 3.2.0 does not validate and escape some of its post-grid block attributes before outputting them back in a page/post where the block is embed, which could allow users with the contributor role and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-6362"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-29T06:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Ultimate Blocks WordPress plugin before 3.2.0 does not validate and escape some of its post-grid block attributes before outputting them back in a page/post where the block is embed, which could allow users with the contributor role and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks",
"id": "GHSA-qjv9-wmrf-56gg",
"modified": "2024-08-01T15:32:13Z",
"published": "2024-07-29T06:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-6362"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/d2e2d06b-0f07-40b9-9b87-3373f62ae1a9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJVG-QMV2-4M7M
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-2025-46894"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-10T23:15:31Z",
"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-qjvg-qmv2-4m7m",
"modified": "2025-06-11T00:30:38Z",
"published": "2025-06-11T00:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46894"
},
{
"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-QJVV-4G3F-5G8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-06 06:30 – Updated: 2024-05-06 06:30A vulnerability was found in Campcodes Complete Web-Based School Management System 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /view/teacher_salary_invoice.php. The manipulation of the argument desc leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-263122 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4518"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-06T04:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in Campcodes Complete Web-Based School Management System 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /view/teacher_salary_invoice.php. The manipulation of the argument desc leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-263122 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-qjvv-4g3f-5g8r",
"modified": "2024-05-06T06:30:43Z",
"published": "2024-05-06T06:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4518"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/E1CHO/cve_hub/blob/main/Complete%20Web-Based%20School%20Management%20System%20-%20xss/Complete%20Web-Based%20School%20Management%20System%20-%20vuln%206.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.263122"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.263122"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.329699"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-QJWC-J7RM-23WG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 00:10 – Updated: 2022-05-02 00:10Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in adodb.php in XAMPP for Windows 1.6.8 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) dbserver, (2) host, (3) user, (4) password, (5) database, and (6) table parameters. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-4450"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-10-06T23:25:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in adodb.php in XAMPP for Windows 1.6.8 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) dbserver, (2) host, (3) user, (4) password, (5) database, and (6) table parameters. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.",
"id": "GHSA-qjwc-j7rm-23wg",
"modified": "2022-05-02T00:10:10Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T00:10:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-4450"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/45522"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/32134"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/31472"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.