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.
67234 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-5QR2-Q8CP-VQ2R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Rami Yushuvaev Clyp allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Clyp: from n/a through 1.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51617"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-19T17:15:17Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Rami Yushuvaev Clyp allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Clyp: from n/a through 1.3.",
"id": "GHSA-5qr2-q8cp-vq2r",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:28Z",
"published": "2024-11-19T18:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51617"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/clyp/vulnerability/wordpress-clyp-plugin-1-3-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/clyp/wordpress-clyp-plugin-1-3-reflected-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-5QR2-X7M5-M83Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:19 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:31Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in wp-admin/includes/class-wp-posts-list-table.php in the posts list table in WordPress before 4.7.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted excerpt.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-5612"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-01-30T04:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in wp-admin/includes/class-wp-posts-list-table.php in the posts list table in WordPress before 4.7.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted excerpt.",
"id": "GHSA-5qr2-x7m5-m83q",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:31:59Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:19:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-5612"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/4482f9207027de8f36630737ae085110896ea849"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codex.wordpress.org/Version_4.7.2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/news/2017/01/wordpress-4-7-2-security-release"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/8731"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3779"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/01/28/5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95816"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037731"
}
],
"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-5QR4-W8XG-RW2M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:33 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:33Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in phpCollegeExchange 0.1.5c allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) _SESSION[handle] parameter to (a) home.php, (b) books/allbooks.php, or (c) books/home.php; or the (2) home parameter to (d) i_head.php or (e) i_nav.php, or (f) allbooks.php, (g) home.php, or (h) i_nav.php in books/.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-2219"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-06-25T23:14:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in phpCollegeExchange 0.1.5c allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) _SESSION[handle] parameter to (a) home.php, (b) books/allbooks.php, or (c) books/home.php; or the (2) home parameter to (d) i_head.php or (e) i_nav.php, or (f) allbooks.php, (g) home.php, or (h) i_nav.php in books/.",
"id": "GHSA-5qr4-w8xg-rw2m",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:33:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:33:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-2219"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/35452"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/9008"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-5QR7-36RH-9HGJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-24 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-30 00:00Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in sourcecodester School File Management System 1.0 via the Firtstname parameter to the Update Account form in student_profile.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29055"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-23T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in sourcecodester School File Management System 1.0 via the Firtstname parameter to the Update Account form in student_profile.php.",
"id": "GHSA-5qr7-36rh-9hgj",
"modified": "2022-06-30T00:00:36Z",
"published": "2022-06-24T00:00:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29055"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/161394/School-File-Management-System-1.0-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sourcecodester.com/php/14155/school-file-management-system.html"
}
],
"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-5QRQ-9645-G5G2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 19:04 – Updated: 2026-06-09 13:12Summary
fides.js is the script that renders Fides's consent banner on customer websites. It lets the embedding page override the banner's description text at runtime via a URL query parameter, a JavaScript global, or a cookie. On sites that have opted into HTML-formatted descriptions, the overridden value is rendered as live HTML without passing through the server-side sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust.
The result is a DOM-based XSS that any visitor can trigger with a crafted link, no authentication required. The cookie source lets the payload persist, so a single click can plant a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across all subdomains until cookies are cleared.
Am I affected?
This vulnerability affects Fides Enterprise deployments that use fides.js for consent management, a.k.a. "Janus", and have HTML-formatted banner descriptions enabled (the FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION Privacy Center container env var set to true ). Deployments that do not load fides.js, or that leave HTML descriptions off (the default), are not affected. The vulnerable code lives in the open-source ethyca-fides PyPI package, which is why this is published as a GHSA and CVE against Fides OSS, but only Fides Enterprise consent management platform deployments exercise the affected path.
To self-test, visit any page where your site loads the consent banner, replacing <your-site>:
https://<your-site>/?fides_override_language=en&fides_description=<img src=x onerror="alert(`DOM XSS in fides_description. Origin: ${document.domain}`)">
If a browser alert() appears showing the embedding origin when the banner renders, the deployment is affected. If the banner does not auto-open, click the manage privacy preferences link to display it.
If no alert appears, the deployment is not affected via this path.
The fides_override_language=en parameter is required because experience-translation overrides only apply when the override language matches the active locale. Adjust to match the active locale on the target site if en is not it.
Details
The vulnerability is a trust gap between two features that are safe in isolation but unsafe together.
The first feature is the override mechanism. fides.js lets the embedding page replace certain banner fields at runtime by reading them from the URL, a JavaScript global, or a cookie on the page origin. The description text is one of the overrideable fields.
The second feature is HTML-formatted descriptions. When the allowHTMLDescription server-controlled flag is on, the rendering path writes the description into the DOM as live HTML rather than plain text. This mode relies on a server-side sanitiser (nh3) to clean any HTML before it reaches the client, so the rendering sink can trust its input.
Combining the two breaks the assumption. The override mechanism feeds the description directly from a client-controlled source, never reaching the server, so the sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust never runs. On a deployment that has both features active, an attacker-supplied value travels straight from URL or cookie to the HTML sink and executes as script.
The cookie source compounds the impact. Cookies set by JavaScript on the apex domain are visible to every subdomain on subsequent loads, so a payload delivered via URL can write a fides_description cookie that fires on every later banner render across the entire site, until the cookie is cleared.
Impact
A successful exploit gives the attacker arbitrary JavaScript execution in the embedding site's origin, with the same authority as the site's own scripts. The payload can read and modify any data the page can access, issue requests on behalf of the visitor, and render content that appears to come from the site itself. The actual consequences on a given deployment depend on what the embedding origin holds and what other defences (CSP, cookie flags, origin isolation) are in place.
The cookie-based persistence variant raises the impact ceiling, since a single click can convert into a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across the apex and all subdomains until the visitor clears their cookies.
Patches
This vulnerability has been patched in Fides OSS version 2.84.5, specifically ethyca/fides-privacy-center:2.84.5 Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against these threats.
Fides Enterprise (fidesplus) version 2.84.6 contains the same patch.
Workarounds
Set FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION=false on the Privacy Center container(s) and redeploy. The XSS sink relies on the flag being on, so turning it off makes fides.js strip HTML from the description before rendering, regardless of which source the value came from.
Severity
This vulnerability has been assigned a severity of HIGH with a CVSS v4 vector of CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N (7.0, High).
The score reflects the worst realistic exploitation path: an attacker who can plant a fides_description cookie on the target origin gets persistent script execution that fires on every visitor's banner render, with no further interaction required. Cookie-write capability is not always available to a remote attacker, and the score accounts for that as a precondition, but when it is available the impact is script execution in the embedding site's origin every time the banner or modal renders.
The more common delivery path (a crafted link the victim clicks) scores 6.3, Medium, with a vector of CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N. Per the FIRST CVSS 4.0 User Guide, library-level vulnerabilities should be scored against the "reasonable worst-case scenario", since the analyst cannot anticipate every deployment context. We publish the higher score on that basis.
The published score is the base severity of the vulnerability itself. Real-world impact on a given deployment can be higher or lower depending on the embedding site's own defences. Sites with HttpOnly session cookies, strict Content-Security-Policy, and authentication flows isolated from the consent experience origin reduce the surface a payload can reach. Sites with permissive CSP, JavaScript-readable session tokens, or same-origin OIDC/social-login flows expose more. Operators should assess the score against their own environment.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "ethyca-fides"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.33.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.84.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44541"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T19:04:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-08T21:16:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`fides.js` is the script that renders Fides\u0027s consent banner on customer websites. It lets the embedding page override the banner\u0027s description text at runtime via a URL query parameter, a JavaScript global, or a cookie. On sites that have opted into HTML-formatted descriptions, the overridden value is rendered as live HTML without passing through the server-side sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust.\n\nThe result is a DOM-based XSS that any visitor can trigger with a crafted link, no authentication required. The cookie source lets the payload persist, so a single click can plant a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across all subdomains until cookies are cleared.\n\n### Am I affected?\n\nThis vulnerability affects Fides Enterprise deployments that use `fides.js` for consent management, a.k.a. \"Janus\", and have HTML-formatted banner descriptions enabled (the `FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION` Privacy Center container env var set to `true` ). Deployments that do not load `fides.js`, or that leave HTML descriptions off (the default), are not affected. The vulnerable code lives in the open-source `ethyca-fides` PyPI package, which is why this is published as a GHSA and CVE against Fides OSS, but only Fides Enterprise consent management platform deployments exercise the affected path.\n\nTo self-test, visit any page where your site loads the consent banner, replacing `\u003cyour-site\u003e`:\n\n```\nhttps://\u003cyour-site\u003e/?fides_override_language=en\u0026fides_description=\u003cimg src=x onerror=\"alert(`DOM XSS in fides_description. Origin: ${document.domain}`)\"\u003e\n```\n\nIf a browser `alert()` appears showing the embedding origin when the banner renders, the deployment is affected. If the banner does not auto-open, click the manage privacy preferences link to display it.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1392\" height=\"1031\" alt=\"dom-xss-localhost\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/548bcf44-e4ab-4070-ab31-89c6cff79be1\" /\u003e\n\nIf no alert appears, the deployment is not affected via this path.\n\nThe `fides_override_language=en` parameter is required because experience-translation overrides only apply when the override language matches the active locale. Adjust to match the active locale on the target site if `en` is not it.\n\n### Details\n\nThe vulnerability is a trust gap between two features that are safe in isolation but unsafe together.\n\nThe first feature is the override mechanism. `fides.js` lets the embedding page replace certain banner fields at runtime by reading them from the URL, a JavaScript global, or a cookie on the page origin. The description text is one of the overrideable fields.\n\nThe second feature is HTML-formatted descriptions. When the `allowHTMLDescription` server-controlled flag is on, the rendering path writes the description into the DOM as live HTML rather than plain text. This mode relies on a server-side sanitiser (`nh3`) to clean any HTML before it reaches the client, so the rendering sink can trust its input.\n\nCombining the two breaks the assumption. The override mechanism feeds the description directly from a client-controlled source, never reaching the server, so the sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust never runs. On a deployment that has both features active, an attacker-supplied value travels straight from URL or cookie to the HTML sink and executes as script.\n\nThe cookie source compounds the impact. Cookies set by JavaScript on the apex domain are visible to every subdomain on subsequent loads, so a payload delivered via URL can write a `fides_description` cookie that fires on every later banner render across the entire site, until the cookie is cleared.\n\n### Impact\n\nA successful exploit gives the attacker arbitrary JavaScript execution in the embedding site\u0027s origin, with the same authority as the site\u0027s own scripts. The payload can read and modify any data the page can access, issue requests on behalf of the visitor, and render content that appears to come from the site itself. The actual consequences on a given deployment depend on what the embedding origin holds and what other defences (CSP, cookie flags, origin isolation) are in place.\n\nThe cookie-based persistence variant raises the impact ceiling, since a single click can convert into a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across the apex and all subdomains until the visitor clears their cookies.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis vulnerability has been patched in Fides OSS version `2.84.5`, specifically `ethyca/fides-privacy-center:2.84.5` Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against these threats.\n\nFides Enterprise (fidesplus) version `2.84.6` contains the same patch.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nSet `FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION=false` on the Privacy Center container(s) and redeploy. The XSS sink relies on the flag being on, so turning it off makes `fides.js` strip HTML from the description before rendering, regardless of which source the value came from.\n\n### Severity\n\nThis vulnerability has been assigned a severity of HIGH with a CVSS v4 vector of `CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N` (7.0, High).\n\nThe score reflects the worst realistic exploitation path: an attacker who can plant a `fides_description` cookie on the target origin gets persistent script execution that fires on every visitor\u0027s banner render, with no further interaction required. Cookie-write capability is not always available to a remote attacker, and the score accounts for that as a precondition, but when it is available the impact is script execution in the embedding site\u0027s origin every time the banner or modal renders.\n\nThe more common delivery path (a crafted link the victim clicks) scores 6.3, Medium, with a vector of `CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N`. Per the FIRST [CVSS 4.0 User Guide](https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/user-guide), library-level vulnerabilities should be scored against the \"reasonable worst-case scenario\", since the analyst cannot anticipate every deployment context. We publish the higher score on that basis.\n\nThe published score is the base severity of the vulnerability itself. Real-world impact on a given deployment can be higher or lower depending on the embedding site\u0027s own defences. Sites with `HttpOnly` session cookies, strict Content-Security-Policy, and authentication flows isolated from the consent experience origin reduce the surface a payload can reach. Sites with permissive CSP, JavaScript-readable session tokens, or same-origin OIDC/social-login flows expose more. Operators should assess the score against their own environment.",
"id": "GHSA-5qrq-9645-g5g2",
"modified": "2026-06-09T13:12:19Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T19:04:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/security/advisories/GHSA-5qrq-9645-g5g2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/commit/67e43b10b1096c7f84d5c0eeba08ee3b7846b7cd"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethyca/fides/releases/tag/2.84.5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "ethyca-fides has a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via fides_description override"
}
GHSA-5QRV-2VJC-XWCQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 18:19 – Updated: 2025-04-03 15:30Argument injection vulnerability involving Mozilla, when certain URIs are registered, allows remote attackers to conduct cross-browser scripting attacks and execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in an unspecified URI, which are inserted into the command line when invoking the handling process, a similar issue to CVE-2007-3670.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2007-4039"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2007-07-27T22:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Argument injection vulnerability involving Mozilla, when certain URIs are registered, allows remote attackers to conduct cross-browser scripting attacks and execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in an unspecified URI, which are inserted into the command line when invoking the handling process, a similar issue to CVE-2007-3670.",
"id": "GHSA-5qrv-2vjc-xwcq",
"modified": "2025-04-03T15:30:40Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T18:19:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-4039"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://larholm.com/2007/07/25/mozilla-protocol-abuse"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jul/0557.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5QV6-9JR7-4RJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:21 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:21Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the web framework in Cisco IOx Local Manager in IOS 15.5(2)T and IOS XE allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, aka Bug ID CSCuy19854.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6404"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-09-18T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the web framework in Cisco IOx Local Manager in IOS 15.5(2)T and IOS XE allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, aka Bug ID CSCuy19854.",
"id": "GHSA-5qv6-9jr7-4rjv",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:21:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:21:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6404"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20160914-ios"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/92963"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1036834"
}
],
"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-5QV9-7J62-HVQQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-03 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in NotFound Killer Theme Options allows Reflected XSS. This issue affects Killer Theme Options: from n/a through 2.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-23473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-03T14:15:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in NotFound Killer Theme Options allows Reflected XSS. This issue affects Killer Theme Options: from n/a through 2.0.",
"id": "GHSA-5qv9-7j62-hvqq",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:51Z",
"published": "2025-03-03T15:31:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-23473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/killer-theme-options/vulnerability/wordpress-killer-theme-options-plugin-2-0-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5QV9-C9JF-639F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-21 09:30 – Updated: 2024-07-21 09:30Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in AMP-MODE Login Logo Editor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Login Logo Editor: from n/a through 1.3.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-37523"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-21T07:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in AMP-MODE Login Logo Editor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Login Logo Editor: from n/a through 1.3.3.",
"id": "GHSA-5qv9-c9jf-639f",
"modified": "2024-07-21T09:30:31Z",
"published": "2024-07-21T09:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-37523"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/login-logo-editor-by-oizuled/wordpress-login-logo-editor-plugin-1-3-3-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5QVC-39C2-6M74
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-09 21:32 – Updated: 2024-04-09 21:32The JetWidgets For Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the widget button URL in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.16 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-2507"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-09T19:15:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The JetWidgets For Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the widget button URL in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.16 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-5qvc-39c2-6m74",
"modified": "2024-04-09T21:32:00Z",
"published": "2024-04-09T21:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2507"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=/jetwidgets-for-elementor/tags/1.0.16\u0026old=3055510\u0026new_path=/jetwidgets-for-elementor/tags/1.0.17\u0026new=3055510\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a02f0a23-0b2b-4e16-9f6d-ec6302a0d23b?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.