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.
67076 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-4JHH-Q54M-VMVV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-15 12:30 – Updated: 2023-12-15 12:30Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.18 and earlier are affected by a Cross-site Scripting (DOM-based XSS) vulnerability. If a low-privileged attacker is able to convince a victim to visit a URL referencing a vulnerable page, malicious JavaScript content may be executed within the context of the victim's browser.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-48492"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-15T11:15:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.18 and earlier are affected by a Cross-site Scripting (DOM-based XSS) vulnerability. If a low-privileged attacker is able to convince a victim to visit a URL referencing a vulnerable page, malicious JavaScript content may be executed within the context of the victim\u0027s browser.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhh-q54m-vmvv",
"modified": "2023-12-15T12:30:28Z",
"published": "2023-12-15T12:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb23-72.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-4JHJ-G9WR-F89Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-23 21:30 – Updated: 2025-05-30 15:30Certain dashboard widgets on Trend Micro Apex Central (on-premise) are vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks that may allow an attacker to achieve remote code execution on affected servers.
Please note this vulnerability is similar, but not identical to CVE-2023-52329.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-52328"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-23T21:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Certain dashboard widgets on Trend Micro Apex Central (on-premise) are vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks that may allow an attacker to achieve remote code execution on affected servers.\n\nPlease note this vulnerability is similar, but not identical to CVE-2023-52329.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhj-g9wr-f89q",
"modified": "2025-05-30T15:30:25Z",
"published": "2024-01-23T21:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52328"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/dcx/s/solution/000296153?language=en_US"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-24-021"
}
],
"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-4JHM-JV67-739F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-08 20:23 – Updated: 2026-07-08 20:23lxml_html_clean.Cleaner does not strip javascript: URLs from namespaced URL attributes (xlink:href)
Reporter: Guillem Lefait guillem@datamq.com · Date: 2026-05-10
Affected: lxml ≤ 6.1.0 and lxml_html_clean ≤ 0.4.4 (latest stable)
Confirmed against: lxml 6.1.0 + lxml_html_clean 0.4.4 on Python 3.13.5, 3.14.4, and 3.15.0a8 (libxml2 2.14.6 / 2.9.14 — bug is in pure-Python sanitizer logic, independent of the libxml2 backend)
Root-cause class: same as CVE-2021-28957 (formaction missing from link_attrs)
Summary
Cleaner filters URL schemes (javascript:, vbscript:, …) by walking links via rewrite_links(), which delegates to iterlinks(), which only yields attributes named in lxml.html.defs.link_attrs. That allow-list contains no prefixed names (xlink:href) and no srcset. As a result, when Cleaner is configured with safe_attrs_only=False — a documented option for callers that want lenient attribute handling but still expect URL-scheme scrubbing — <a xlink:href="javascript:…"> survives sanitization untouched, and any browser that follows the SVG-anchor specification will execute the JavaScript when the rendered link is clicked.
CWE: CWE-79 (XSS), with CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs) as the underlying defect class.
Affected components
| Package | Versions tested | File / line |
|---|---|---|
lxml |
4.9.x, 5.2.1, 6.1.0 | src/lxml/html/defs.py:20 |
lxml |
" | src/lxml/html/__init__.py:485-528 |
lxml_html_clean |
0.4.0 – 0.4.4 | lxml_html_clean/clean.py:348,576 |
The legacy lxml.html.clean module — bundled in lxml < 5.2.0 and still installable on newer versions via the lxml[html_clean] extra — shares the same bug.
Root cause
defs.link_attrs is a flat string set; the literal xlink:href is absent:
# lxml/html/defs.py
link_attrs = frozenset([
'action', 'archive', 'background', 'cite', 'classid',
'codebase', 'data', 'href', 'longdesc', 'profile', 'src',
'usemap', 'dynsrc', 'lowsrc', 'formaction',
])
HtmlMixin.iterlinks() (lxml/html/__init__.py:526-528) only yields attributes whose key is in that set:
for attrib in link_attrs:
if attrib in attribs:
yield (el, attrib, attribs[attrib], 0)
Cleaner.__call__ registers the URL-scheme filter via rewrite_links (lxml_html_clean/clean.py:348), which is a thin wrapper around iterlinks(). Because xlink:href is never yielded, _remove_javascript_link (clean.py:576) is never invoked for it.
Minimal reproducer
from lxml import html
from lxml_html_clean import Cleaner
for payload in (
'<svg><a xlink:href="javascript:alert(1)">x</a></svg>',
'<math><a xlink:href="javascript:alert(2)">y</a></math>',
):
tree = html.fromstring(payload)
Cleaner(safe_attrs_only=False)(tree)
print(html.tostring(tree).decode())
print(' iterlinks:', list(html.fromstring(payload).iterlinks()))
# <svg><a xlink:href="javascript:alert(1)">x</a></svg> ← unchanged
# iterlinks: [] ← link rewriter blind
# <math><a xlink:href="javascript:alert(2)">y</a></math> ← unchanged
# iterlinks: [] ← link rewriter blind
Both SVG and MathML scopes are vulnerable — same allow-list gap, both render anchors that browsers treat as navigable. Other lab-confirmed surviving variants (same scope, different scheme encoding): mixed-case (JaVaScRiPt:), HTML-entity (javascript:), embedded tab (java\tscript:).
Impact
A caller that uses Cleaner to neutralise untrusted HTML and chooses safe_attrs_only=False — typically because the application wants to allow custom data-/aria-/vendor attributes — will silently pass javascript: payloads carried on xlink:href through to victim renders. Stored XSS in any application that round-trips user-supplied HTML through this configuration. Reach is conditional on the safe_attrs_only=False toggle, but that is a documented public option; consumers reasonably expect URL-scheme scrubbing to be independent of attribute allow-listing.
Suggested fix
Extend link_attrs to include xlink:href. In HTML mode, lxml.html keeps prefixed attribute names verbatim — the parsed key is the literal string xlink:href, not a Clark-notation form — so the existing allow-list lookup is a plain string match. Same shape as the CVE-2021-28957 fix:
# lxml/html/defs.py
link_attrs = frozenset([
'action', 'archive', 'background', 'cite', 'classid',
'codebase', 'data', 'href', 'longdesc', 'profile', 'src',
'usemap', 'dynsrc', 'lowsrc', 'formaction',
+ 'xlink:href',
])
This single change closes the reported XSS for both SVG <a xlink:href> and MathML <a xlink:href>. lxml_html_clean is the canonical home of the Cleaner code (881 lines); lxml.html.clean is a 21-line backward-compat shim (from lxml_html_clean import *) that picks up the fix automatically once link_attrs is updated upstream. Since the upstream change requires lxml maintainer action, see the alternative below if a self-contained patch in lxml_html_clean is preferred.
Alternative (in-package fix, no lxml coordination needed): add a namespaced-URL-attribute walk inside Cleaner.__call__ so the URL-scheme filter doesn't depend on link_attrs. Sketch:
# lxml_html_clean/clean.py — supplements rewrite_links() in __call__
_NS_URL_ATTRS = ('xlink:href',) # extend as needed
_BAD_SCHEME = re.compile(r'^\s*(javascript|vbscript|data):', re.I)
for el in doc.iter():
for attr in _NS_URL_ATTRS:
if attr in el.attrib and _BAD_SCHEME.match(el.attrib[attr]):
del el.attrib[attr]
This decouples the cleaner from the upstream link_attrs set and matches the security-ownership boundary established when the cleaner was extracted in lxml 5.2.0.
Defense in depth (optional, regardless of which fix path is taken):
- Also handle srcset: the value is a url 1x, url 2x, … descriptor list, so split on commas and validate each candidate URL. Not directly executable in current browsers, but closes the same gap.
- Also accept Clark-notation forms ({http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink}href) so XML-mode callers using lxml.etree get the same protection. HTML mode never produces this form, so not needed for the reported bug.
Severity
CVSS 3.1 base score: 8.2 / High — AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N (stored XSS; victim must click the SVG anchor; scope-changed because script executes in the rendering origin). PR:N reflects the common case where untrusted HTML enters the sanitizer from anonymous sources (comments, support tickets); deployments that gate writes behind authentication can score with PR:L (→ 7.6).
Severity is CONDITIONAL on the caller passing safe_attrs_only=False. With the class default (True), attribute allow-listing strips xlink:href before scheme scrubbing runs, and the bug does not fire — verified at HEAD: default-config Cleaner()(<svg><a xlink:href="javascript:…">x</a></svg>) → <svg><a>x</a></svg>.
Prior art / novelty
- CVE-2021-28957 (lxml 4.6.3) — same root cause, different attribute (
formaction). Fix was a one-line extension oflink_attrs. Direct precedent. - CVE-2022-34473 (Mozilla Sanitizer API) —
xlink:hrefURL bypass primitive in a different sanitizer. - Bleach (Mozilla, Python) explicitly handles the
xlinknamespace;enshrined/svg-sanitize(PHP) shipscleanXlinkHrefs(); DOMPurify scrubsxlink:hrefviaALLOWED_URI_REGEXP. nh3(the alternative recommended inlxml_html_clean's own README for security-sensitive use) is not vulnerable to this primitive — verified 2026-05-10 onnh3==0.3.5: with<svg>/<math>/<a>andxlink:hrefexplicitly added totags/attributes, both SVG and MathML payloads, all four scheme-encoding variants, are stripped (output e.g.<svg><a rel="noopener noreferrer">x</a></svg>).
Coordination
Filing as a private GHSA at fedora-python/lxml_html_clean — lxml_html_clean is the canonical maintainer of the Cleaner code (881 lines) and the security-responsible team since the lxml 5.2.0 split, where the cleaner was extracted out of lxml precisely so cleaner-security reports could land on the right team. The lxml side cannot be filed via GHSA (https://github.com/lxml/lxml/security/advisories/new returns 404 — private reporting is not enabled), so a parallel report has been emailed directly to the lxml maintainer for the upstream defs.link_attrs patch path. You're welcome to coordinate with them directly if you'd prefer the upstream fix over the in-package alternative above.
Happy to provide a draft patch or PR on either path. No bounty expected.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "lxml_html_clean"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49825"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-08T20:23:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# `lxml_html_clean.Cleaner` does not strip `javascript:` URLs from namespaced URL attributes (`xlink:href`)\n\n**Reporter:** Guillem Lefait \u003cguillem@datamq.com\u003e \u00b7 **Date:** 2026-05-10\n**Affected:** `lxml` \u2264 6.1.0 and `lxml_html_clean` \u2264 0.4.4 (latest stable)\n**Confirmed against:** lxml 6.1.0 + lxml_html_clean 0.4.4 on Python 3.13.5, 3.14.4, and 3.15.0a8 (libxml2 2.14.6 / 2.9.14 \u2014 bug is in pure-Python sanitizer logic, independent of the libxml2 backend)\n**Root-cause class:** same as CVE-2021-28957 (`formaction` missing from `link_attrs`)\n\n## Summary\n\n`Cleaner` filters URL schemes (`javascript:`, `vbscript:`, \u2026) by walking links via `rewrite_links()`, which delegates to `iterlinks()`, which only yields attributes named in `lxml.html.defs.link_attrs`. That allow-list contains no prefixed names (`xlink:href`) and no `srcset`. As a result, when `Cleaner` is configured with `safe_attrs_only=False` \u2014 a documented option for callers that want lenient attribute handling but still expect URL-scheme scrubbing \u2014 `\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:\u2026\"\u003e` survives sanitization untouched, and any browser that follows the SVG-anchor specification will execute the JavaScript when the rendered link is clicked.\n\n**CWE:** CWE-79 (XSS), with CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs) as the underlying defect class.\n\n## Affected components\n\n| Package | Versions tested | File / line |\n|--------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|\n| `lxml` | 4.9.x, 5.2.1, 6.1.0 | `src/lxml/html/defs.py:20` |\n| `lxml` | \" | `src/lxml/html/__init__.py:485-528` |\n| `lxml_html_clean` | 0.4.0 \u2013 0.4.4 | `lxml_html_clean/clean.py:348,576` |\n\nThe legacy `lxml.html.clean` module \u2014 bundled in `lxml \u003c 5.2.0` and still installable on newer versions via the `lxml[html_clean]` extra \u2014 shares the same bug.\n\n## Root cause\n\n`defs.link_attrs` is a flat string set; the literal `xlink:href` is absent:\n\n```python\n# lxml/html/defs.py\nlink_attrs = frozenset([\n \u0027action\u0027, \u0027archive\u0027, \u0027background\u0027, \u0027cite\u0027, \u0027classid\u0027,\n \u0027codebase\u0027, \u0027data\u0027, \u0027href\u0027, \u0027longdesc\u0027, \u0027profile\u0027, \u0027src\u0027,\n \u0027usemap\u0027, \u0027dynsrc\u0027, \u0027lowsrc\u0027, \u0027formaction\u0027,\n])\n```\n\n`HtmlMixin.iterlinks()` (`lxml/html/__init__.py:526-528`) only yields attributes whose key is in that set:\n\n```python\nfor attrib in link_attrs:\n if attrib in attribs:\n yield (el, attrib, attribs[attrib], 0)\n```\n\n`Cleaner.__call__` registers the URL-scheme filter via `rewrite_links` (`lxml_html_clean/clean.py:348`), which is a thin wrapper around `iterlinks()`. Because `xlink:href` is never yielded, `_remove_javascript_link` (`clean.py:576`) is never invoked for it.\n\n## Minimal reproducer\n\n```python\nfrom lxml import html\nfrom lxml_html_clean import Cleaner\n\nfor payload in (\n \u0027\u003csvg\u003e\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:alert(1)\"\u003ex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/svg\u003e\u0027,\n \u0027\u003cmath\u003e\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:alert(2)\"\u003ey\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/math\u003e\u0027,\n):\n tree = html.fromstring(payload)\n Cleaner(safe_attrs_only=False)(tree)\n print(html.tostring(tree).decode())\n print(\u0027 iterlinks:\u0027, list(html.fromstring(payload).iterlinks()))\n# \u003csvg\u003e\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:alert(1)\"\u003ex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/svg\u003e \u2190 unchanged\n# iterlinks: [] \u2190 link rewriter blind\n# \u003cmath\u003e\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:alert(2)\"\u003ey\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/math\u003e \u2190 unchanged\n# iterlinks: [] \u2190 link rewriter blind\n```\n\nBoth SVG and MathML scopes are vulnerable \u2014 same allow-list gap, both render anchors that browsers treat as navigable. Other lab-confirmed surviving variants (same scope, different scheme encoding): mixed-case (`JaVaScRiPt:`), HTML-entity (`java\u0026#x73;cript:`), embedded tab (`java\\tscript:`).\n\n## Impact\n\nA caller that uses `Cleaner` to neutralise untrusted HTML and chooses `safe_attrs_only=False` \u2014 typically because the application wants to allow custom data-/aria-/vendor attributes \u2014 will silently pass `javascript:` payloads carried on `xlink:href` through to victim renders. Stored XSS in any application that round-trips user-supplied HTML through this configuration. Reach is conditional on the `safe_attrs_only=False` toggle, but that is a documented public option; consumers reasonably expect URL-scheme scrubbing to be independent of attribute allow-listing.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\n**Extend `link_attrs`** to include `xlink:href`. In HTML mode, `lxml.html` keeps prefixed attribute names verbatim \u2014 the parsed key is the literal string `xlink:href`, not a Clark-notation form \u2014 so the existing allow-list lookup is a plain string match. Same shape as the CVE-2021-28957 fix:\n\n```diff\n # lxml/html/defs.py\n link_attrs = frozenset([\n \u0027action\u0027, \u0027archive\u0027, \u0027background\u0027, \u0027cite\u0027, \u0027classid\u0027,\n \u0027codebase\u0027, \u0027data\u0027, \u0027href\u0027, \u0027longdesc\u0027, \u0027profile\u0027, \u0027src\u0027,\n \u0027usemap\u0027, \u0027dynsrc\u0027, \u0027lowsrc\u0027, \u0027formaction\u0027,\n+ \u0027xlink:href\u0027,\n ])\n```\n\nThis single change closes the reported XSS for both SVG `\u003ca xlink:href\u003e` and MathML `\u003ca xlink:href\u003e`. `lxml_html_clean` is the canonical home of the `Cleaner` code (881 lines); `lxml.html.clean` is a 21-line backward-compat shim (`from lxml_html_clean import *`) that picks up the fix automatically once `link_attrs` is updated upstream. Since the upstream change requires lxml maintainer action, see the alternative below if a self-contained patch in `lxml_html_clean` is preferred.\n\n**Alternative (in-package fix, no lxml coordination needed):** add a namespaced-URL-attribute walk inside `Cleaner.__call__` so the URL-scheme filter doesn\u0027t depend on `link_attrs`. Sketch:\n\n```python\n# lxml_html_clean/clean.py \u2014 supplements rewrite_links() in __call__\n_NS_URL_ATTRS = (\u0027xlink:href\u0027,) # extend as needed\n_BAD_SCHEME = re.compile(r\u0027^\\s*(javascript|vbscript|data):\u0027, re.I)\n\nfor el in doc.iter():\n for attr in _NS_URL_ATTRS:\n if attr in el.attrib and _BAD_SCHEME.match(el.attrib[attr]):\n del el.attrib[attr]\n```\n\nThis decouples the cleaner from the upstream `link_attrs` set and matches the security-ownership boundary established when the cleaner was extracted in lxml 5.2.0.\n\n**Defense in depth (optional, regardless of which fix path is taken):**\n- Also handle `srcset`: the value is a `url 1x, url 2x, \u2026` descriptor list, so split on commas and validate each candidate URL. Not directly executable in current browsers, but closes the same gap.\n- Also accept Clark-notation forms (`{http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink}href`) so XML-mode callers using `lxml.etree` get the same protection. HTML mode never produces this form, so not needed for the reported bug.\n\n## Severity\n\nCVSS 3.1 base score: **8.2 / High** \u2014 `AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N` (stored XSS; victim must click the SVG anchor; scope-changed because script executes in the rendering origin). PR:N reflects the common case where untrusted HTML enters the sanitizer from anonymous sources (comments, support tickets); deployments that gate writes behind authentication can score with PR:L (\u2192 7.6).\n\nSeverity is **CONDITIONAL** on the caller passing `safe_attrs_only=False`. With the class default (`True`), attribute allow-listing strips `xlink:href` before scheme scrubbing runs, and the bug does not fire \u2014 verified at HEAD: default-config `Cleaner()(\u003csvg\u003e\u003ca xlink:href=\"javascript:\u2026\"\u003ex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/svg\u003e)` \u2192 `\u003csvg\u003e\u003ca\u003ex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/svg\u003e`.\n\n## Prior art / novelty\n\n- **CVE-2021-28957 (lxml 4.6.3)** \u2014 same root cause, different attribute (`formaction`). Fix was a one-line extension of `link_attrs`. Direct precedent.\n- **CVE-2022-34473** (Mozilla Sanitizer API) \u2014 `xlink:href` URL bypass primitive in a different sanitizer.\n- **Bleach (Mozilla, Python)** explicitly handles the `xlink` namespace; `enshrined/svg-sanitize` (PHP) ships `cleanXlinkHrefs()`; DOMPurify scrubs `xlink:href` via `ALLOWED_URI_REGEXP`.\n- **`nh3`** (the alternative recommended in `lxml_html_clean`\u0027s own README for security-sensitive use) is **not vulnerable** to this primitive \u2014 verified 2026-05-10 on `nh3==0.3.5`: with `\u003csvg\u003e`/`\u003cmath\u003e`/`\u003ca\u003e` and `xlink:href` explicitly added to `tags`/`attributes`, both SVG and MathML payloads, all four scheme-encoding variants, are stripped (output e.g. `\u003csvg\u003e\u003ca rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ex\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/svg\u003e`).\n\n\n## Coordination\n\nFiling as a private GHSA at `fedora-python/lxml_html_clean` \u2014 `lxml_html_clean` is the canonical maintainer of the `Cleaner` code (881 lines) and the security-responsible team since the lxml 5.2.0 split, where the cleaner was extracted out of lxml precisely so cleaner-security reports could land on the right team. The lxml side cannot be filed via GHSA (`https://github.com/lxml/lxml/security/advisories/new` returns 404 \u2014 private reporting is not enabled), so a parallel report has been emailed directly to the lxml maintainer for the upstream `defs.link_attrs` patch path. You\u0027re welcome to coordinate with them directly if you\u0027d prefer the upstream fix over the in-package alternative above.\n\nHappy to provide a draft patch or PR on either path. No bounty expected.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhm-jv67-739f",
"modified": "2026-07-08T20:23:22Z",
"published": "2026-07-08T20:23:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fedora-python/lxml_html_clean/security/advisories/GHSA-4jhm-jv67-739f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/fedora-python/lxml_html_clean"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "`lxml_html_clean.Cleaner` does not strip `javascript:` URLs from namespaced URL attributes"
}
GHSA-4JHR-4WXF-62WW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-12 18:30 – Updated: 2022-12-14 21:30The Flat PM WordPress plugin through 2.661 does not sanitize and escapes some parameters, which could allow users with a role as low as Admin to perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3934"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-12T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Flat PM WordPress plugin through 2.661 does not sanitize and escapes some parameters, which could allow users with a role as low as Admin to perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhr-4wxf-62ww",
"modified": "2022-12-14T21:30:16Z",
"published": "2022-12-12T18:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/ab68381f-c4b8-4945-a6a5-1d4d6473b73a"
}
],
"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-4JHR-55HQ-JHCW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-29 06:30 – Updated: 2025-12-29 06:30A vulnerability was detected in SohuTV CacheCloud up to 3.2.0. Affected by this issue is the function doAppList/appCommandAnalysis of the file src/main/java/com/sohu/cache/web/controller/AppController.java. Performing manipulation results in cross site scripting. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-15175"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-29T06:15:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was detected in SohuTV CacheCloud up to 3.2.0. Affected by this issue is the function doAppList/appCommandAnalysis of the file src/main/java/com/sohu/cache/web/controller/AppController.java. Performing manipulation results in cross site scripting. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhr-55hq-jhcw",
"modified": "2025-12-29T06:30:24Z",
"published": "2025-12-29T06:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-15175"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sohutv/cachecloud/issues/371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sohutv/cachecloud/issues/381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.338560"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.338560"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.716309"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.716322"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-4JHX-HR8G-2CQ8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:46 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:46Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WSO2 SOA Enablement Server for Java/6.6 build SSJ-6.6-20090827-1616 and earlier allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the PATH_INFO.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-4327"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-02-17T02:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WSO2 SOA Enablement Server for Java/6.6 build SSJ-6.6-20090827-1616 and earlier allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the PATH_INFO.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhx-hr8g-2cq8",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:46:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:46:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-4327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/137073/WSO2-SOA-Enablement-Server-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/538413/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/85893"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4JHX-XJ9W-GW72
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-06 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-12 00:01A cross-site scripting issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions before 15.0.5, 15.1 prior to 15.1.4, and 15.2 prior to 15.2.1. A stored XSS flaw in job error messages allows attackers to perform arbitrary actions on behalf of victims at client side.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2500"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-05T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site scripting issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions before 15.0.5, 15.1 prior to 15.1.4, and 15.2 prior to 15.2.1. A stored XSS flaw in job error messages allows attackers to perform arbitrary actions on behalf of victims at client side.",
"id": "GHSA-4jhx-xj9w-gw72",
"modified": "2022-08-12T00:01:24Z",
"published": "2022-08-06T00:00:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2500"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/1579645"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cves/-/blob/master/2022/CVE-2022-2500.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/363725"
}
],
"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-4JJ8-CC83-5GXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-05 18:31 – Updated: 2024-12-05 18:31A vulnerability has been found in code-projects Simple CRUD Functionality 1.0 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /index.php. The manipulation of the argument newtitle/newdescr leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12232"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-05T16:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been found in code-projects Simple CRUD Functionality 1.0 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /index.php. The manipulation of the argument newtitle/newdescr leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-4jj8-cc83-5gxq",
"modified": "2024-12-05T18:31:03Z",
"published": "2024-12-05T18:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12232"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://code-projects.org"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/LamentXU123/cve/blob/main/xss3.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.286978"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.286978"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.456069"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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-4JJC-W6J6-3589
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:47 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:53An issue was discovered in PHP Scripts Mall API Based Travel Booking 3.4.7. There is Reflected XSS via the flight-results.php d2 parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7554"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-06T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in PHP Scripts Mall API Based Travel Booking 3.4.7. There is Reflected XSS via the flight-results.php d2 parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-4jjc-w6j6-3589",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:53:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:47:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7554"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://securityhitlist.blogspot.com/2019/02/cve-2019-7554-reflected-xss-in-api.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.phpscriptsmall.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4JJG-VCJ3-Q93V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-08 00:31 – Updated: 2025-03-08 00:31An XSS issue was discovered in the Bootstrap 5 Lite theme before 1.x-1.0.3 for Backdrop CMS. It doesn't sufficiently sanitize certain class names.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-27825"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-07T22:15:38Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An XSS issue was discovered in the Bootstrap 5 Lite theme before 1.x-1.0.3 for Backdrop CMS. It doesn\u0027t sufficiently sanitize certain class names.",
"id": "GHSA-4jjg-vcj3-q93v",
"modified": "2025-03-08T00:31:20Z",
"published": "2025-03-08T00:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27825"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://backdropcms.org/security/backdrop-sa-contrib-2025-004"
}
],
"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.