Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-79

Allowed

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable

API response cwe.mitre.org

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.

67268 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-R7F3-7VG8-6678

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:42 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:42
VLAI
Details

Affected versions of Atlassian Jira Server and Data Center allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Screens Modal view. The affected versions are before version 8.5.11, from version 8.6.0 before 8.13.3, and from version 8.14.0 before 8.15.0.

Severity
4.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-36234"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-02-15T00:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Affected versions of Atlassian Jira Server and Data Center allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Screens Modal view. The affected versions are before version 8.5.11, from version 8.6.0 before 8.13.3, and from version 8.14.0 before 8.15.0.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7f3-7vg8-6678",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T17:42:12Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:42:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36234"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-72059"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-R7FH-8XGP-XJW3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-15 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:33
VLAI
Details

The ViewMedica 9 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's 'viewmedica' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.15 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.

Severity
6.4 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-13394"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-01-15T06:15:16Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The ViewMedica 9 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \u0027viewmedica\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.15 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7fh-8xgp-xjw3",
  "modified": "2026-04-08T21:33:00Z",
  "published": "2025-01-15T06:30:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13394"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/viewmedica/trunk/swarm.php"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3230015"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/viewmedica"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/b32c1b63-564c-4c38-a149-d5adabda8a8b?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-R7FX-8G49-7HHR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 21:24 – Updated: 2026-05-13 13:52
VLAI
Summary
Grav CMS vulnerable to stored XSS via Markdown media attribute() action
Details

Summary

An authenticated user with page editing permissions can inject an executable JavaScript event-handler attribute into rendered image HTML through Grav's Markdown media action syntax.

The issue is caused by Markdown image query parameters being converted into callable media actions. The public attribute() media method can be reached this way, allowing an editor to set an arbitrary HTML attribute name and value on the generated image element.

For example, this Markdown:

![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))

is rendered as an image tag containing an executable onload handler:

<img onload="alert(document.domain)" alt="Quarterly market overview" src="/user/pages/03.campaigns/market-overview.gif?...">

This results in stored XSS when another user views the affected page. In a multi-user Grav installation, a lower-privileged page editor could use this to target administrators or reviewers who preview or view editor-controlled content.

Tested versions:

  • Grav CMS: 1.7.49.5
  • Admin Plugin: 1.10.49.1

Suggested classification:

  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation
  • Stored Cross-Site Scripting
  • Suggested CVSS v4.0 score if page editing is considered high privilege: 6.9 Medium
  • Suggested CVSS v4.0 vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N
  • Suggested CVSS v3.1 score if page editing is considered high privilege: 6.9 Medium
  • Suggested CVSS v3.1 vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

Details

The issue appears to come from this source-to-sink flow:

  1. ParsedownGravTrait::inlineImage() processes Markdown images.
  2. Excerpts::processImageExcerpt() resolves the referenced media object.
  3. Excerpts::processMediaActions() parses the image URL query string into media actions.
  4. call_user_func_array() invokes the requested action method on the media object.
  5. MediaObjectTrait::attribute() stores the attacker-controlled attribute name and value.
  6. The media object returns a Parsedown element containing the injected attribute.
  7. Parsedown renders the attribute name into the final HTML.

Relevant code paths:

system/src/Grav/Common/Markdown/ParsedownGravTrait.php
system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Markdown/Excerpts.php
system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php
system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/StaticImageMedium.php
system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/ImageMedium.php
vendor/erusev/parsedown/Parsedown.php

In system/src/Grav/Common/Markdown/ParsedownGravTrait.php, Markdown image excerpts are passed into Grav-specific media handling:

if (isset($excerpt['element']['attributes']['src'])) {
    $excerpt = $this->excerpts->processImageExcerpt($excerpt);
}

In system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Markdown/Excerpts.php, query string parameters are converted into media action calls. The query parameter name becomes the method name:

$carry[] = ['method' => $parts[0], 'params' => $value];

The requested method is later invoked dynamically:

$medium = call_user_func_array([$medium, $action['method']], $args);

For the payload:

attribute=onload,alert(document.domain)

the method is attribute, and the arguments are onload and alert(document.domain).

In system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php, attribute() stores the caller-controlled attribute name directly:

public function attribute($attribute = null, $value = '')
{
    if (!empty($attribute)) {
        $this->attributes[$attribute] = $value;
    }
    return $this;
}

The image media classes then return the collected attributes as attributes for an img element.

In system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/StaticImageMedium.php:

return ['name' => 'img', 'attributes' => $attributes];

The non-static image path in system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/ImageMedium.php also returns image attributes in the same way.

Finally, in vendor/erusev/parsedown/Parsedown.php, the attribute value is escaped, but the attribute name is rendered as-is:

$markup .= ' '.$name.'="'.self::escape($value).'"';

As a result, the attacker-controlled attribute name onload is emitted into the final HTML and executes as a browser event handler.

The Admin Plugin's save-time XSS detection does not appear to block this because the stored content is Markdown media syntax, not raw HTML:

![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))

The dangerous HTML is generated later during Markdown/media rendering.

PoC

I reproduced this on a standard Grav CMS installation with the Admin Plugin enabled.

Configuration and prerequisites:

  • Grav CMS 1.7.49.5
  • Admin Plugin 1.10.49.1
  • Markdown processing enabled for pages
  • A user account with permission to create or edit pages
  • A page media file available in the edited page folder, for example market-overview.gif

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Install Grav CMS with the Admin Plugin.
  2. Log in to the Admin panel as a user who can create or edit pages.
  3. Create a normal content page or edit an existing one.
  4. Add or reference a page media file named market-overview.gif.
  5. Insert the following Markdown into the page body:

markdown ![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))

  1. Save the page.
  2. Open the rendered frontend page in a browser.
  3. The JavaScript payload executes when the image loads.
  4. Inspect the generated DOM. The rendered image element contains the injected onload attribute.

Expected result:

The Markdown media action should not be able to generate executable HTML attributes. The payload should be rejected, sanitized, or rendered without the dangerous event-handler attribute.

Actual result:

The payload is accepted and rendered as an executable image event handler:

<img onload="alert(document.domain)" alt="Quarterly market overview" src="/user/pages/03.campaigns/market-overview.gif?...">

Screenshots:

  • the stored Markdown payload in the page editor edycja
  • the JavaScript alert executing on the frontend page alert
  • browser DevTools showing the injected onload attribute in the rendered DOM inspect

Impact

This is a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability.

An authenticated user with page editing permissions can store a malicious Markdown image reference. When the affected page is rendered, the payload executes in the browser of any user who views that page.

In multi-user Grav installations, this may allow a lower-privileged editor to target administrators, reviewers, or other privileged users who preview or view editor-controlled content. Depending on the victim's privileges and deployed plugins, successful exploitation may allow JavaScript execution in the site origin, access to same-origin page data available to the victim, and same-origin actions performed as the victim.

CVSS 4.0 rationale:

  • AV:N: the issue is exploitable through the web application.
  • AC:L: no special race condition or complex setup is required after page editing access is obtained.
  • AT:P: exploitation requires the malicious Markdown/media reference to be stored in page content and later rendered to a victim.
  • PR:H: the attacker needs page editing capability.
  • UI:P: a victim must view the affected page. The demonstrated onload payload executes on passive page rendering, without requiring a click or form submission by the victim.
  • VC:H/VI:L/VA:N: confidentiality impact can be high when the victim is an administrator or reviewer; integrity impact is limited; no direct availability impact was demonstrated.
  • SC:H/SI:L/SA:N: the injected script executes in the browser/application context and may affect subsequent same-origin interactions available to the victim.

Maintainer note — fix applied (2026-04-24)

Fixed in Grav core on the 2.0 branch: commit 5a12f9be8 — will ship in 2.0.0-beta.2.

What changed: MediaObjectTrait::attribute() — the sink reached by Markdown like ![alt](img.gif?attribute=onload,alert(1)) — now gates the attribute name through an allowlist regex (^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_:.\-]*$) plus an explicit denylist of script-context names:

  • any on* handler (case-insensitive)
  • style (inline CSS expression risk)
  • xmlns (XML namespace tricks)
  • srcdoc (iframe sandbox bypass)
  • formaction (form action override)

Invalid names are silently dropped — the attribute isn't stored, so it doesn't survive into the rendered <img>. src/href/data-*/aria-*/standard media attributes are unaffected.

Files: - system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php — new isSafeAttributeName() gate. - tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/MediaAttributeSecurityTest.php — 28 cases (14 dangerous-name rejections, 14 safe-name round-trips).

Discoverers

@K-Czaplicki @morzelowski

Severity
4.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "getgrav/grav"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.0.0-beta.2"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-42841"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-05T21:24:08Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-11T16:17:34Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nAn authenticated user with page editing permissions can inject an executable JavaScript event-handler attribute into rendered image HTML through Grav\u0027s Markdown media action syntax.\n\nThe issue is caused by Markdown image query parameters being converted into callable media actions. The public `attribute()` media method can be reached this way, allowing an editor to set an arbitrary HTML attribute name and value on the generated image element.\n\nFor example, this Markdown:\n\n```markdown\n![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))\n```\n\nis rendered as an image tag containing an executable `onload` handler:\n\n```html\n\u003cimg onload=\"alert(document.domain)\" alt=\"Quarterly market overview\" src=\"/user/pages/03.campaigns/market-overview.gif?...\"\u003e\n```\n\nThis results in stored XSS when another user views the affected page. In a multi-user Grav installation, a lower-privileged page editor could use this to target administrators or reviewers who preview or view editor-controlled content.\n\nTested versions:\n\n- Grav CMS: 1.7.49.5\n- Admin Plugin: 1.10.49.1\n\nSuggested classification:\n\n- CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation\n- Stored Cross-Site Scripting\n- Suggested CVSS v4.0 score if page editing is considered high privilege: 6.9 Medium\n- Suggested CVSS v4.0 vector: `CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N`\n- Suggested CVSS v3.1 score if page editing is considered high privilege: 6.9 Medium\n- Suggested CVSS v3.1 vector: `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N`\n\n### Details\n\nThe issue appears to come from this source-to-sink flow:\n\n1. `ParsedownGravTrait::inlineImage()` processes Markdown images.\n2. `Excerpts::processImageExcerpt()` resolves the referenced media object.\n3. `Excerpts::processMediaActions()` parses the image URL query string into media actions.\n4. `call_user_func_array()` invokes the requested action method on the media object.\n5. `MediaObjectTrait::attribute()` stores the attacker-controlled attribute name and value.\n6. The media object returns a Parsedown element containing the injected attribute.\n7. Parsedown renders the attribute name into the final HTML.\n\nRelevant code paths:\n\n```text\nsystem/src/Grav/Common/Markdown/ParsedownGravTrait.php\nsystem/src/Grav/Common/Page/Markdown/Excerpts.php\nsystem/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php\nsystem/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/StaticImageMedium.php\nsystem/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/ImageMedium.php\nvendor/erusev/parsedown/Parsedown.php\n```\n\nIn `system/src/Grav/Common/Markdown/ParsedownGravTrait.php`, Markdown image excerpts are passed into Grav-specific media handling:\n\n```php\nif (isset($excerpt[\u0027element\u0027][\u0027attributes\u0027][\u0027src\u0027])) {\n    $excerpt = $this-\u003eexcerpts-\u003eprocessImageExcerpt($excerpt);\n}\n```\n\nIn `system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Markdown/Excerpts.php`, query string parameters are converted into media action calls. The query parameter name becomes the method name:\n\n```php\n$carry[] = [\u0027method\u0027 =\u003e $parts[0], \u0027params\u0027 =\u003e $value];\n```\n\nThe requested method is later invoked dynamically:\n\n```php\n$medium = call_user_func_array([$medium, $action[\u0027method\u0027]], $args);\n```\n\nFor the payload:\n\n```text\nattribute=onload,alert(document.domain)\n```\n\nthe method is `attribute`, and the arguments are `onload` and `alert(document.domain)`.\n\nIn `system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php`, `attribute()` stores the caller-controlled attribute name directly:\n\n```php\npublic function attribute($attribute = null, $value = \u0027\u0027)\n{\n    if (!empty($attribute)) {\n        $this-\u003eattributes[$attribute] = $value;\n    }\n    return $this;\n}\n```\n\nThe image media classes then return the collected attributes as attributes for an `img` element.\n\nIn `system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/StaticImageMedium.php`:\n\n```php\nreturn [\u0027name\u0027 =\u003e \u0027img\u0027, \u0027attributes\u0027 =\u003e $attributes];\n```\n\nThe non-static image path in `system/src/Grav/Common/Page/Medium/ImageMedium.php` also returns image attributes in the same way.\n\nFinally, in `vendor/erusev/parsedown/Parsedown.php`, the attribute value is escaped, but the attribute name is rendered as-is:\n\n```php\n$markup .= \u0027 \u0027.$name.\u0027=\"\u0027.self::escape($value).\u0027\"\u0027;\n```\n\nAs a result, the attacker-controlled attribute name `onload` is emitted into the final HTML and executes as a browser event handler.\n\nThe Admin Plugin\u0027s save-time XSS detection does not appear to block this because the stored content is Markdown media syntax, not raw HTML:\n\n```markdown\n![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))\n```\n\nThe dangerous HTML is generated later during Markdown/media rendering.\n\n### PoC\n\nI reproduced this on a standard Grav CMS installation with the Admin Plugin enabled.\n\nConfiguration and prerequisites:\n\n- Grav CMS 1.7.49.5\n- Admin Plugin 1.10.49.1\n- Markdown processing enabled for pages\n- A user account with permission to create or edit pages\n- A page media file available in the edited page folder, for example `market-overview.gif`\n\nSteps to reproduce:\n\n1. Install Grav CMS with the Admin Plugin.\n2. Log in to the Admin panel as a user who can create or edit pages.\n3. Create a normal content page or edit an existing one.\n4. Add or reference a page media file named `market-overview.gif`.\n5. Insert the following Markdown into the page body:\n\n   ```markdown\n   ![Quarterly market overview](market-overview.gif?attribute=onload,alert(document.domain))\n   ```\n\n6. Save the page.\n7. Open the rendered frontend page in a browser.\n8. The JavaScript payload executes when the image loads.\n9. Inspect the generated DOM. The rendered image element contains the injected `onload` attribute.\n\nExpected result:\n\nThe Markdown media action should not be able to generate executable HTML attributes. The payload should be rejected, sanitized, or rendered without the dangerous event-handler attribute.\n\nActual result:\n\nThe payload is accepted and rendered as an executable image event handler:\n\n```html\n\u003cimg onload=\"alert(document.domain)\" alt=\"Quarterly market overview\" src=\"/user/pages/03.campaigns/market-overview.gif?...\"\u003e\n```\n\nScreenshots:\n\n- the stored Markdown payload in the page editor\n\u003cimg width=\"1718\" height=\"1013\" alt=\"edycja\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8f5e5275-e4ef-4d5e-a2cd-44683537b909\" /\u003e\n- the JavaScript alert executing on the frontend page\n\u003cimg width=\"1727\" height=\"1002\" alt=\"alert\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6de81228-830c-49f2-ac41-b15658a8913d\" /\u003e\n- browser DevTools showing the injected `onload` attribute in the rendered DOM\n\u003cimg width=\"939\" height=\"539\" alt=\"inspect\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7832c42d-6f3a-4ea2-b072-b837bd3913ed\" /\u003e\n\n### Impact\n\nThis is a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability.\n\nAn authenticated user with page editing permissions can store a malicious Markdown image reference. When the affected page is rendered, the payload executes in the browser of any user who views that page.\n\nIn multi-user Grav installations, this may allow a lower-privileged editor to target administrators, reviewers, or other privileged users who preview or view editor-controlled content. Depending on the victim\u0027s privileges and deployed plugins, successful exploitation may allow JavaScript execution in the site origin, access to same-origin page data available to the victim, and same-origin actions performed as the victim.\n\nCVSS 4.0 rationale:\n\n- `AV:N`: the issue is exploitable through the web application.\n- `AC:L`: no special race condition or complex setup is required after page editing access is obtained.\n- `AT:P`: exploitation requires the malicious Markdown/media reference to be stored in page content and later rendered to a victim.\n- `PR:H`: the attacker needs page editing capability.\n- `UI:P`: a victim must view the affected page. The demonstrated `onload` payload executes on passive page rendering, without requiring a click or form submission by the victim.\n- `VC:H/VI:L/VA:N`: confidentiality impact can be high when the victim is an administrator or reviewer; integrity impact is limited; no direct availability impact was demonstrated.\n- `SC:H/SI:L/SA:N`: the injected script executes in the browser/application context and may affect subsequent same-origin interactions available to the victim.\n\n## Maintainer note \u2014 fix applied (2026-04-24)\n\nFixed in Grav core on the `2.0` branch: commit [`5a12f9be8`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/5a12f9be8) \u2014 will ship in **2.0.0-beta.2**.\n\n**What changed:** `MediaObjectTrait::attribute()` \u2014 the sink reached by Markdown like `![alt](img.gif?attribute=onload,alert(1))` \u2014 now gates the attribute **name** through an allowlist regex (`^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_:.\\-]*$`) plus an explicit denylist of script-context names:\n\n- any `on*` handler (case-insensitive)\n- `style` (inline CSS expression risk)\n- `xmlns` (XML namespace tricks)\n- `srcdoc` (iframe sandbox bypass)\n- `formaction` (form action override)\n\nInvalid names are silently dropped \u2014 the attribute isn\u0027t stored, so it doesn\u0027t survive into the rendered `\u003cimg\u003e`. `src`/`href`/`data-*`/`aria-*`/standard media attributes are unaffected.\n\n**Files:**\n- [`system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/system/src/Grav/Common/Media/Traits/MediaObjectTrait.php) \u2014 new `isSafeAttributeName()` gate.\n- [`tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/MediaAttributeSecurityTest.php`](https://github.com/getgrav/grav/blob/2.0/tests/unit/Grav/Common/Security/MediaAttributeSecurityTest.php) \u2014 28 cases (14 dangerous-name rejections, 14 safe-name round-trips).\n\n### Discoverers\n\n@K-Czaplicki\n@morzelowski\n\n\n---",
  "id": "GHSA-r7fx-8g49-7hhr",
  "modified": "2026-05-13T13:52:10Z",
  "published": "2026-05-05T21:24:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-r7fx-8g49-7hhr"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42841"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/5a12f9be8314682c8713e569e330f11805d0a663"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav"
    }
  ],
  "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:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Grav CMS vulnerable to stored XSS via Markdown media attribute() action"
}

GHSA-R7G7-H9Q3-437J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:03 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:03
VLAI
Details

The WP Customer Reviews WordPress plugin before 3.5.6 did not sanitise some of its settings, allowing high privilege users such as administrators to set XSS payloads in them which will then be triggered in pages where reviews are enabled

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-24296"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-05-24T11:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The WP Customer Reviews WordPress plugin before 3.5.6 did not sanitise some of its settings, allowing high privilege users such as administrators to set XSS payloads in them which will then be triggered in pages where reviews are enabled",
  "id": "GHSA-r7g7-h9q3-437j",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:03:08Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:03:08Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24296"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/c450f54a-3372-49b2-8ad8-68d5cc0dd49e"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-R7G7-RFQF-6FX5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2022-05-24 22:28
VLAI
Details

The “All-in-One Addons for Elementor – WidgetKit� WordPress Plugin before 2.3.10 has several widgets that are vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) by lower-privileged users such as contributors, all via a similar method.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-24267"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-05-05T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153All-in-One Addons for Elementor \u00e2\u20ac\u201c WidgetKit\u00e2\u20ac? WordPress Plugin before 2.3.10 has several widgets that are vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) by lower-privileged users such as contributors, all via a similar method.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7g7-rfqf-6fx5",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T22:28:56Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T22:28:56Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24267"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/0c96f3a1-d192-481f-9035-5393f4aadc19"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/04/recent-patches-rock-the-elementor-ecosystem"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-R7GC-QVC7-G642

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-20 03:31 – Updated: 2026-05-20 03:31
VLAI
Details

The LJ comments import: reloaded plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via PHP_SELF Parameter in all versions up to, and including, 0.97.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. The vulnerability arises specifically because PHP_SELF includes attacker-controllable PATH_INFO appended to the script name, and there are two distinct unsanitized echo points for this value in the same function.

Severity
6.1 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-8624"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-20T02:16:40Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The LJ comments import: reloaded plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via PHP_SELF Parameter in all versions up to, and including, 0.97.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. The vulnerability arises specifically because PHP_SELF includes attacker-controllable PATH_INFO appended to the script name, and there are two distinct unsanitized echo points for this value in the same function.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7gc-qvc7-g642",
  "modified": "2026-05-20T03:31:35Z",
  "published": "2026-05-20T03:31:35Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8624"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/lj-comments-import-reloaded/trunk/lj_comments_import.php#L129"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/lj-comments-import-reloaded/trunk/lj_comments_import.php#L161"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/0f09cb59-dbbb-48a3-aeac-377f6ec87b88?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-R7GM-V66R-96Q4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:48 – Updated: 2025-03-31 12:30
VLAI
Details

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in js/viewer.js in ownCloud before 4.5.12 and 5.x before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to shared files.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2013-2150"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2014-03-14T16:55:00Z",
    "severity": "LOW"
  },
  "details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in js/viewer.js in ownCloud before 4.5.12 and 5.x before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to shared files.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7gm-v66r-96q4",
  "modified": "2025-03-31T12:30:36Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T04:48:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-2150"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://owncloud.org/about/security/advisories/oC-SA-2013-028"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-R7GQ-P7QV-9889

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:48 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:48
VLAI
Details

Microsoft SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016 allows an elevation of privilege vulnerability to due how specially crafted web requests are sanitized, aka "Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability". This CVE is unique from CVE-2018-0909, CVE-2018-0910. CVE-2018-0911, CVE-2018-0912, CVE-2018-0913 CVE-2018-0914, CVE-2018-0915, CVE-2018-0916, CVE-2018-0921, CVE-2018-0923, CVE-2018-0944 and CVE-2018-0947.

Severity
8.8 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-0917"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2018-03-14T17:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Microsoft SharePoint Enterprise Server 2016 allows an elevation of privilege vulnerability to due how specially crafted web requests are sanitized, aka \"Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability\". This CVE is unique from CVE-2018-0909, CVE-2018-0910. CVE-2018-0911, CVE-2018-0912, CVE-2018-0913 CVE-2018-0914, CVE-2018-0915, CVE-2018-0916, CVE-2018-0921, CVE-2018-0923, CVE-2018-0944 and CVE-2018-0947.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7gq-p7qv-9889",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:48:28Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:48:28Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-0917"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2018-0917"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/103296"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040513"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-R7GR-3P24-RV5J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-23 00:30 – Updated: 2025-10-02 18:30
VLAI
Details

A potential stored cross-site scripting vulnerability has been identified in the Poly Clariti Manager for versions prior to 10.12.1. The website allows user input to be stored and rendered without proper sanitization. HP has addressed the issue in the latest software update.

Severity
4.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
5.7 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-43486"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-07-23T00:15:25Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A potential stored cross-site scripting vulnerability has been\nidentified in the Poly Clariti Manager for versions prior to 10.12.1. The\nwebsite allows user input to be stored and rendered without proper\nsanitization. HP has addressed the issue in the latest software update.",
  "id": "GHSA-r7gr-3p24-rv5j",
  "modified": "2025-10-02T18:30:56Z",
  "published": "2025-07-23T00:30:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-43486"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/ish_12781425-12781447-16/hbsbpy04037"
    }
  ],
  "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:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-R7GR-RCG6-HXHR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-03 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-03 00:00
VLAI
Details

A Stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Shopizer versions 2.0 through 2.17.0, where a privileged user (attacker) can inject malicious JavaScript in the filename under the “Manage files” tab

Severity
4.8 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-23060"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-05-01T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A Stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Shopizer versions 2.0 through 2.17.0, where a privileged user (attacker) can inject malicious JavaScript in the filename under the \u201cManage files\u201d tab",
  "id": "GHSA-r7gr-rcg6-hxhr",
  "modified": "2022-05-03T00:00:46Z",
  "published": "2022-05-03T00:00:46Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23060"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/shopizer-ecommerce/shopizer/commit/6b9f1ecd303b3b724d96bd08095c1a751dcc287e"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/vulnerability-database/CVE-2022-23060"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}
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.

← Back to the CWE list