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.
67024 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-RX4C-7V62-8378
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-09 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-09 18:30An XSS vulnerability in pxc_Dot1xCfg.php can be used by an unauthenticated remote attacker to trick an authenticated user to click on the link provided by the attacker in order to change parameters available via web based management (WBM). The vulnerability does not provide access to system-level resources such as operating system internals or privileged functions. Access is limited to device configuration parameters that are available in the context of the web application. The session cookie is secured by the httpOnly Flag. Therefore an attacker is not able to take over the session of an authenticated user.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-41748"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-09T16:17:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An XSS vulnerability in pxc_Dot1xCfg.php can be used by an unauthenticated remote attacker to trick an authenticated user to click on the link provided by the attacker in order to change parameters available via web based management (WBM). The vulnerability does not provide access to system-level resources such as operating system internals or privileged functions. Access is limited to device configuration parameters that are available in the context of the web application. The session cookie is secured by the httpOnly Flag. Therefore an attacker is not able to take over the session of an authenticated user.",
"id": "GHSA-rx4c-7v62-8378",
"modified": "2025-12-09T18:30:36Z",
"published": "2025-12-09T18:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-41748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://certvde.com/de/advisories/VDE-2025-071"
}
],
"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-RX4H-526Q-4458
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 23:28 – Updated: 2026-04-06 16:40Summary
An attacker who can place a malicious URL in an Attribute View mAsse field can trigger stored XSS when a victim opens the Gallery or Kanban view with “Cover From -> Asset Field” enabled. The vulnerable code accepts arbitrary http(s) URLs without extensions as images, stores the attacker-controlled string in coverURL, and injects it directly into an <img src="..."> attribute without escaping. In the Electron desktop client, the injected JavaScript executes with nodeIntegration enabled and contextIsolation disabled, so the XSS reaches arbitrary OS command execution under the victim’s account.
Details
The vulnerable flow is:
IsPossiblyImage(assetPath)accepts arbitraryhttp(s)URLs without validating that they are safe image URLs.- When an Attribute View card uses
Cover From -> Asset Field, the application copiesasset.Contentdirectly intogalleryCard.CoverURL / kanbanCard.CoverURL. - The front-end renderer inserts
coverURLdirectly into<img src="${getCompressURL(item.coverURL)}">without escaping quotes or other attribute-breaking characters. - A payload such as
https://example.com/" onerror="require('child_process').exec('calc')breaks out of thesrcattribute and adds an attacker-controlledonerrorhandler. When the image fails to load, the injected JavaScript runs in the Electron renderer. Because the desktop app enablesnodeIntegration: trueand disablescontextIsolationandwebSecurity, that JavaScript can access Node.js APIs and execute system commands.
PoC
- Install Electron Desktop app.
- Create a database / Attribute View with an mAsset column and add at least one row.
- Add any legitimate image to that mAsset field so the entry is stored as type image.
- Switch the view to Gallery or Kanban. 5.Set Cover From to Asset Field and choose the mAsset column.
- Edit the existing image asset entry and replace its link with the following payload:
https://example.com/" onerror="require('child_process').exec('calc')
- Save the change and reopen or refresh the Gallery / Kanban view.
- Observe that the rendered HTML contains an injected onerror handler and the Calculator application starts on Windows.
Example rendered output:
<img loading="lazy" class="av__gallery-img" src="https://example.com/" onerror="require('child_process').exec('calc')">
Impact
An attacker can store malicious content in a database asset field and execute arbitrary JavaScript when another user opens the affected Gallery or Kanban view. In the desktop client, that JavaScript has access to Node.js APIs, so the impact is not limited to browser-context XSS. The payload executes OS commands with the victim’s local user privileges, which turns this into remote code execution on the desktop application once the malicious content is delivered and rendered.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.6.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.6.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34448"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T23:28:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T22:16:19Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Summary\nAn attacker who can place a malicious URL in an Attribute View `mAsse` field can trigger stored XSS when a victim opens the Gallery or Kanban view with \u201cCover From -\u003e Asset Field\u201d enabled. The vulnerable code accepts arbitrary `http(s)` URLs without extensions as images, stores the attacker-controlled string in `coverURL`, and injects it directly into an `\u003cimg src=\"...\"\u003e` attribute without escaping. In the Electron desktop client, the injected JavaScript executes with `nodeIntegration` enabled and `contextIsolation` disabled, so the XSS reaches arbitrary OS command execution under the victim\u2019s account.\n\n### Details\nThe vulnerable flow is:\n\n1. `IsPossiblyImage(assetPath)` accepts arbitrary `http(s)` URLs without validating that they are safe image URLs.\n2. When an Attribute View card uses `Cover From -\u003e Asset Field`, the application copies `asset.Content` directly into `galleryCard.CoverURL / kanbanCard.CoverURL`.\n3. The front-end renderer inserts `coverURL` directly into `\u003cimg src=\"${getCompressURL(item.coverURL)}\"\u003e` without escaping quotes or other attribute-breaking characters.\n4. A payload such as `https://example.com/\" onerror=\"require(\u0027child_process\u0027).exec(\u0027calc\u0027)` breaks out of the `src` attribute and adds an attacker-controlled `onerror` handler.\nWhen the image fails to load, the injected JavaScript runs in the Electron renderer. Because the desktop app enables `nodeIntegration: true` and disables `contextIsolation` and `webSecurity`, that JavaScript can access Node.js APIs and execute system commands.\n\n### PoC\n1. Install Electron Desktop app.\n2. Create a database / Attribute View with an mAsset column and add at least one row.\n3. Add any legitimate image to that mAsset field so the entry is stored as type image.\n4. Switch the view to Gallery or Kanban.\n5.Set Cover From to Asset Field and choose the mAsset column.\n6. Edit the existing image asset entry and replace its link with the following payload:\n```\nhttps://example.com/\" onerror=\"require(\u0027child_process\u0027).exec(\u0027calc\u0027)\n```\n7. Save the change and reopen or refresh the Gallery / Kanban view.\n8. Observe that the rendered HTML contains an injected onerror handler and the Calculator application starts on Windows.\n\nExample rendered output:\n```html\n\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" class=\"av__gallery-img\" src=\"https://example.com/\" onerror=\"require(\u0027child_process\u0027).exec(\u0027calc\u0027)\"\u003e\n```\n### Impact\nAn attacker can store malicious content in a database asset field and execute arbitrary JavaScript when another user opens the affected Gallery or Kanban view. In the desktop client, that JavaScript has access to Node.js APIs, so the impact is not limited to browser-context XSS. The payload executes OS commands with the victim\u2019s local user privileges, which turns this into remote code execution on the desktop application once the malicious content is delivered and rendered.",
"id": "GHSA-rx4h-526q-4458",
"modified": "2026-04-06T16:40:00Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T23:28:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-rx4h-526q-4458"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/issues/17246"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/releases/tag/v3.6.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Stored XSS in Attribute View Gallery/Kanban Cover Rendering Allows Arbitrary Command Execution in Desktop Client"
}
GHSA-RX4V-33P7-72QJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-06 06:30 – Updated: 2025-05-06 06:30A vulnerability was found in MRCMS 3.1.2 and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /admin/chip/add.do of the component Add Fragment Page. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4326"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-06T06:15:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in MRCMS 3.1.2 and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /admin/chip/add.do of the component Add Fragment Page. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-rx4v-33p7-72qj",
"modified": "2025-05-06T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2025-05-06T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4326"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bdkuzma/vuln/issues/7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.307427"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.307427"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.563549"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/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-RX4W-62P5-V393
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-11 00:00 – Updated: 2021-12-15 00:01Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability discovered in WordPress Comment Engine Pro plugin (versions <= 1.0), could be exploited by users with Editor or higher role.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36911"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-10T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability discovered in WordPress Comment Engine Pro plugin (versions \u003c= 1.0), could be exploited by users with Editor or higher role.",
"id": "GHSA-rx4w-62p5-v393",
"modified": "2021-12-15T00:01:33Z",
"published": "2021-12-11T00:00:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36911"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/comment-engine-pro/wordpress-comment-engine-pro-plugin-1-0-stored-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/comment-engine-pro"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RX55-C747-39PW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-03 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in IfSo Dynamic Content If-So Dynamic Content Personalization allows Stored XSS. This issue affects If-So Dynamic Content Personalization: from n/a through 1.9.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-58602"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-03T15:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in IfSo Dynamic Content If-So Dynamic Content Personalization allows Stored XSS. This issue affects If-So Dynamic Content Personalization: from n/a through 1.9.4.",
"id": "GHSA-rx55-c747-39pw",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:02Z",
"published": "2025-09-03T15:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58602"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/if-so/vulnerability/wordpress-if-so-dynamic-content-personalization-plugin-1-9-4-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RX57-4MMF-7J34
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:31 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:31Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in AstroSoft HelpDesk before 1.95.228 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) txtSearch parameter to operator/article/article_search_results.asp and the (2) Attach_Id parameter to operator/article/article_attachment.asp. NOTE: for vector 2, the XSS occurs in a forced SQL error message.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-0605"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-02-06T12:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in AstroSoft HelpDesk before 1.95.228 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) txtSearch parameter to operator/article/article_search_results.asp and the (2) Attach_Id parameter to operator/article/article_attachment.asp. NOTE: for vector 2, the XSS occurs in a forced SQL error message.",
"id": "GHSA-rx57-4mmf-7j34",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:31:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:31:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-0605"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3612"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/487487/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/488107/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/27610"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RX57-HFR8-VVW9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Keon Themes Creative Blocks allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Creative Blocks: from n/a through 1.0.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51822"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-19T17:15:29Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Keon Themes Creative Blocks allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Creative Blocks: from n/a through 1.0.1.",
"id": "GHSA-rx57-hfr8-vvw9",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:31Z",
"published": "2024-11-19T18:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51822"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/creative-blocks/vulnerability/wordpress-creative-blocks-plugin-1-0-1-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/creative-blocks/wordpress-creative-blocks-plugin-1-0-1-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RX58-46QJ-JHCF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-13 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-13 18:30The Colibri Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's 'colibri_loop' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.335 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11376"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-13T16:16:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Colibri Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \u0027colibri_loop\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.335 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-rx58-46qj-jhcf",
"modified": "2025-12-13T18:30:19Z",
"published": "2025-12-13T18:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11376"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3377192%40colibri-page-builder\u0026new=3377192%40colibri-page-builder\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/38eaf4be-5083-46fe-b586-e4be190dc9cc?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-RX59-94QJ-GP9F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-21 12:30 – Updated: 2025-04-21 12:30An improper neutralization of input vulnerability was identified in the End of Life (EOL) OVA based connect installer component which is deployed for installation purposes in a customer network. This EOL component was deprecated in September 2023 with end of support extended till January 2024. An actor can manipulate the action parameter of the login form to inject malicious scripts which would lead to a XSS attack under certain conditions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3840"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-21T10:15:15Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "An improper neutralization of input vulnerability was identified in the End of Life (EOL) OVA based connect installer component which is deployed for installation purposes in a customer network. This EOL component was deprecated in September 2023 with end of support extended till January 2024. An actor can manipulate the action parameter of the login form to inject malicious scripts which would lead to a XSS attack under certain conditions.",
"id": "GHSA-rx59-94qj-gp9f",
"modified": "2025-04-21T12:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-04-21T12:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://saviynt.com/trust-compliance-security"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/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-RX5C-WXQ4-WP76
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-14 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Xylus Themes WP Event Aggregator allows Reflected XSS. This issue affects WP Event Aggregator: from n/a through 1.8.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24700"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-14T13:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Xylus Themes WP Event Aggregator allows Reflected XSS. This issue affects WP Event Aggregator: from n/a through 1.8.2.",
"id": "GHSA-rx5c-wxq4-wp76",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:40Z",
"published": "2025-02-14T15:31:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24700"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-event-aggregator/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-event-aggregator-plugin-1-8-2-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"
}
]
}
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.