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.
69754 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-9MR9-9JPX-V54P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-16 06:30 – Updated: 2024-11-16 06:30The BulkPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting due to the use of add_query_arg without appropriate escaping on the URL in all versions up to, and including, 0.3.5. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-9615"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-16T04:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The BulkPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting due to the use of add_query_arg without appropriate escaping on the URL in all versions up to, and including, 0.3.5. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-9mr9-9jpx-v54p",
"modified": "2024-11-16T06:30:41Z",
"published": "2024-11-16T06:30:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-9615"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bulkpress/trunk/lib/classes/AdminMenuPage/class.Abstract.php#L221"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bbce4588-fbd2-4b75-8f67-51c7d02892be?source=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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9MR9-PCMG-4XR7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-20 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-24 00:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Soflyy WP Wizard Cloak wp-wizard-cloak allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects WP Wizard Cloak: from n/a through <= 1.0.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53237"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-20T16:22:02Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Soflyy WP Wizard Cloak wp-wizard-cloak allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects WP Wizard Cloak: from n/a through \u003c= 1.0.1.",
"id": "GHSA-9mr9-pcmg-4xr7",
"modified": "2026-02-24T00:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-02-20T18:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-wizard-cloak/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-wizard-cloak-plugin-1-0-1-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-9MRH-3627-MG6X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-28 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in TMS Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar – Amelia allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar – Amelia: from n/a through 1.0.85.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-50860"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-28T11:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in TMS Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar \u2013 Amelia allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Booking for Appointments and Events Calendar \u2013 Amelia: from n/a through 1.0.85.",
"id": "GHSA-9mrh-3627-mg6x",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:35Z",
"published": "2023-12-28T12:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-50860"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/ameliabooking/wordpress-amelia-plugin-1-0-85-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-9MRH-V2V3-XPFM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-16 21:08 – Updated: 2026-04-16 21:08Summary
Commit 49d0bb7 introduced a regression in sanitize-html that bypasses allowedTags enforcement for text inside nonTextTagsArray elements (textarea and option). Entity-encoded HTML inside these elements passes through the sanitizer as decoded, unescaped HTML, allowing injection of arbitrary tags including XSS payloads. This affects any application using sanitize-html that includes option or textarea in its allowedTags configuration.
Details
The vulnerable code is at packages/sanitize-html/index.js:569-573:
} else if ((options.disallowedTagsMode === 'discard' || options.disallowedTagsMode === 'completelyDiscard') && (nonTextTagsArray.indexOf(tag) !== -1)) {
// htmlparser2 does not decode entities inside raw text elements like
// textarea and option. The text is already properly encoded, so pass
// it through without additional escaping to avoid double-encoding.
result += text;
}
The comment is factually incorrect. htmlparser2 10.x does decode HTML entities inside both <textarea> and <option> elements before passing text to the ontext callback. This can be verified:
const htmlparser2 = require('htmlparser2');
const parser = new htmlparser2.Parser({
ontext(text) { console.log(JSON.stringify(text)); }
});
parser.write('<option><script></option>');
// Outputs: "<", "script", ">" — entities are decoded
Because the code assumes the text is "already properly encoded" and skips escapeHtml(), the decoded entities (<, >) are written directly to the output as literal HTML characters. This completely bypasses the allowedTags filter — any tag can be injected inside an allowed option or textarea element using entity encoding.
The execution flow:
1. Attacker submits: <option><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></option>
2. htmlparser2 parses and decodes entities → ontext receives <img src=x onerror=alert(1)>
3. Code at line 569 checks: tag is option, which is in nonTextTagsArray → true
4. Line 573: result += text — writes decoded text directly without escaping
5. Output: <option><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></option> — <img> tag injected despite not being in allowedTags
The script and style tags are handled separately at lines 563-568 (before the vulnerable block), so the effective vulnerability applies to textarea and option, plus any custom elements added to nonTextTags by the user.
Prior to commit 49d0bb7, text in these elements fell through to the escapeHtml branch (line 574-580), which correctly re-encoded the decoded entities.
PoC
Prerequisites: Application using sanitize-html 2.17.2 with option or textarea in allowedTags.
Step 1: Basic tag injection via option
const sanitize = require('sanitize-html');
const output = sanitize(
'<option><script>alert(1)</script></option>',
{ allowedTags: ['option'] }
);
console.log(output);
// Expected (safe): <option><script>alert(1)</script></option>
// Actual (vulnerable): <option><script>alert(1)</script></option>
Step 2: Element breakout with XSS event handler
const output2 = sanitize(
'<option></option><img src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)></option>',
{ allowedTags: ['option'] }
);
console.log(output2);
// Output: <option></option><img src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)></option>
// The <img> tag escapes the option context and executes the onerror handler
Step 3: Textarea breakout (also vulnerable)
const output3 = sanitize(
'<textarea></textarea><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></textarea>',
{ allowedTags: ['textarea'] }
);
console.log(output3);
// Output: <textarea></textarea><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></textarea>
Step 4: Full select/option context breakout
const output4 = sanitize(
'<select><option></option></select><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></option></select>',
{ allowedTags: ['select', 'option'] }
);
console.log(output4);
// Output: <select><option></option></select><img src=x onerror=alert(1)></option></select>
// Breaks out of both option and select elements
All outputs verified against sanitize-html 2.17.2 with htmlparser2 10.x.
Impact
- Complete
allowedTagsbypass: Any HTML tag can be injected through an allowedoptionortextareaelement using entity encoding, defeating the core security guarantee of sanitize-html. - Stored XSS: Applications that sanitize user-submitted HTML and allow
optionortextareatags (common in form builders, CMS platforms, rich text editors) are vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting. - Session hijacking: Attackers can inject event handlers (
onerror,onload, etc.) to steal session cookies or authentication tokens. - Scope: Affects non-default configurations only — the default
allowedTagsdoes not includeoptionortextarea. However, these tags are commonly allowed in applications that handle form-related HTML content.
Recommended Fix
Remove the vulnerable code block at lines 569-573 entirely. The escapeHtml branch (line 574) correctly handles these elements — htmlparser2 10.x decodes entities, and re-encoding with escapeHtml produces correct HTML output (entities are round-tripped, not double-encoded).
--- a/packages/sanitize-html/index.js
+++ b/packages/sanitize-html/index.js
@@ -566,11 +566,6 @@ function sanitizeHtml(html, options, _recursing) {
// your concern, don't allow them. The same is essentially true for style tags
// which have their own collection of XSS vectors.
result += text;
- } else if ((options.disallowedTagsMode === 'discard' || options.disallowedTagsMode === 'completelyDiscard') && (nonTextTagsArray.indexOf(tag) !== -1)) {
- // htmlparser2 does not decode entities inside raw text elements like
- // textarea and option. The text is already properly encoded, so pass
- // it through without additional escaping to avoid double-encoding.
- result += text;
} else if (!addedText) {
const escaped = escapeHtml(text, false);
if (options.textFilter) {
This fix restores the pre-49d0bb7 behavior where all non-script/style text content goes through escapeHtml(), ensuring decoded entities are properly re-encoded before output.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "sanitize-html"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.17.2"
},
{
"fixed": "2.17.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40186"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-16T21:08:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-15T21:17:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nCommit 49d0bb7 introduced a regression in sanitize-html that bypasses `allowedTags` enforcement for text inside `nonTextTagsArray` elements (`textarea` and `option`). Entity-encoded HTML inside these elements passes through the sanitizer as decoded, unescaped HTML, allowing injection of arbitrary tags including XSS payloads. This affects any application using sanitize-html that includes `option` or `textarea` in its `allowedTags` configuration.\n\n## Details\n\nThe vulnerable code is at `packages/sanitize-html/index.js:569-573`:\n\n```javascript\n} else if ((options.disallowedTagsMode === \u0027discard\u0027 || options.disallowedTagsMode === \u0027completelyDiscard\u0027) \u0026\u0026 (nonTextTagsArray.indexOf(tag) !== -1)) {\n // htmlparser2 does not decode entities inside raw text elements like\n // textarea and option. The text is already properly encoded, so pass\n // it through without additional escaping to avoid double-encoding.\n result += text;\n}\n```\n\nThe comment is factually incorrect. htmlparser2 10.x **does** decode HTML entities inside both `\u003ctextarea\u003e` and `\u003coption\u003e` elements before passing text to the `ontext` callback. This can be verified:\n\n```javascript\nconst htmlparser2 = require(\u0027htmlparser2\u0027);\nconst parser = new htmlparser2.Parser({\n ontext(text) { console.log(JSON.stringify(text)); }\n});\nparser.write(\u0027\u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;script\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e\u0027);\n// Outputs: \"\u003c\", \"script\", \"\u003e\" \u2014 entities are decoded\n```\n\nBecause the code assumes the text is \"already properly encoded\" and skips `escapeHtml()`, the decoded entities (`\u003c`, `\u003e`) are written directly to the output as literal HTML characters. This completely bypasses the `allowedTags` filter \u2014 any tag can be injected inside an allowed `option` or `textarea` element using entity encoding.\n\nThe execution flow:\n1. Attacker submits: `\u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;img src=x onerror=alert(1)\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e`\n2. htmlparser2 parses and decodes entities \u2192 `ontext` receives `\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)\u003e`\n3. Code at line 569 checks: tag is `option`, which is in `nonTextTagsArray` \u2192 true\n4. Line 573: `result += text` \u2014 writes decoded text directly without escaping\n5. Output: `\u003coption\u003e\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)\u003e\u003c/option\u003e` \u2014 `\u003cimg\u003e` tag injected despite not being in `allowedTags`\n\nThe `script` and `style` tags are handled separately at lines 563-568 (before the vulnerable block), so the effective vulnerability applies to `textarea` and `option`, plus any custom elements added to `nonTextTags` by the user.\n\nPrior to commit 49d0bb7, text in these elements fell through to the `escapeHtml` branch (line 574-580), which correctly re-encoded the decoded entities.\n\n## PoC\n\n**Prerequisites:** Application using sanitize-html 2.17.2 with `option` or `textarea` in `allowedTags`.\n\n**Step 1: Basic tag injection via option**\n```javascript\nconst sanitize = require(\u0027sanitize-html\u0027);\nconst output = sanitize(\n \u0027\u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;script\u0026gt;alert(1)\u0026lt;/script\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e\u0027,\n { allowedTags: [\u0027option\u0027] }\n);\nconsole.log(output);\n// Expected (safe): \u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;script\u0026gt;alert(1)\u0026lt;/script\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e\n// Actual (vulnerable): \u003coption\u003e\u003cscript\u003ealert(1)\u003c/script\u003e\u003c/option\u003e\n```\n\n**Step 2: Element breakout with XSS event handler**\n```javascript\nconst output2 = sanitize(\n \u0027\u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;/option\u0026gt;\u0026lt;img src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e\u0027,\n { allowedTags: [\u0027option\u0027] }\n);\nconsole.log(output2);\n// Output: \u003coption\u003e\u003c/option\u003e\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(document.cookie)\u003e\u003c/option\u003e\n// The \u003cimg\u003e tag escapes the option context and executes the onerror handler\n```\n\n**Step 3: Textarea breakout (also vulnerable)**\n```javascript\nconst output3 = sanitize(\n \u0027\u003ctextarea\u003e\u0026lt;/textarea\u0026gt;\u0026lt;img src=x onerror=alert(1)\u0026gt;\u003c/textarea\u003e\u0027,\n { allowedTags: [\u0027textarea\u0027] }\n);\nconsole.log(output3);\n// Output: \u003ctextarea\u003e\u003c/textarea\u003e\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)\u003e\u003c/textarea\u003e\n```\n\n**Step 4: Full select/option context breakout**\n```javascript\nconst output4 = sanitize(\n \u0027\u003cselect\u003e\u003coption\u003e\u0026lt;/option\u0026gt;\u0026lt;/select\u0026gt;\u0026lt;img src=x onerror=alert(1)\u0026gt;\u003c/option\u003e\u003c/select\u003e\u0027,\n { allowedTags: [\u0027select\u0027, \u0027option\u0027] }\n);\nconsole.log(output4);\n// Output: \u003cselect\u003e\u003coption\u003e\u003c/option\u003e\u003c/select\u003e\u003cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)\u003e\u003c/option\u003e\u003c/select\u003e\n// Breaks out of both option and select elements\n```\n\nAll outputs verified against sanitize-html 2.17.2 with htmlparser2 10.x.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Complete `allowedTags` bypass**: Any HTML tag can be injected through an allowed `option` or `textarea` element using entity encoding, defeating the core security guarantee of sanitize-html.\n- **Stored XSS**: Applications that sanitize user-submitted HTML and allow `option` or `textarea` tags (common in form builders, CMS platforms, rich text editors) are vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting.\n- **Session hijacking**: Attackers can inject event handlers (`onerror`, `onload`, etc.) to steal session cookies or authentication tokens.\n- **Scope**: Affects non-default configurations only \u2014 the default `allowedTags` does not include `option` or `textarea`. However, these tags are commonly allowed in applications that handle form-related HTML content.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nRemove the vulnerable code block at lines 569-573 entirely. The `escapeHtml` branch (line 574) correctly handles these elements \u2014 htmlparser2 10.x decodes entities, and re-encoding with `escapeHtml` produces correct HTML output (entities are round-tripped, not double-encoded).\n\n```diff\n--- a/packages/sanitize-html/index.js\n+++ b/packages/sanitize-html/index.js\n@@ -566,11 +566,6 @@ function sanitizeHtml(html, options, _recursing) {\n // your concern, don\u0027t allow them. The same is essentially true for style tags\n // which have their own collection of XSS vectors.\n result += text;\n- } else if ((options.disallowedTagsMode === \u0027discard\u0027 || options.disallowedTagsMode === \u0027completelyDiscard\u0027) \u0026\u0026 (nonTextTagsArray.indexOf(tag) !== -1)) {\n- // htmlparser2 does not decode entities inside raw text elements like\n- // textarea and option. The text is already properly encoded, so pass\n- // it through without additional escaping to avoid double-encoding.\n- result += text;\n } else if (!addedText) {\n const escaped = escapeHtml(text, false);\n if (options.textFilter) {\n```\n\nThis fix restores the pre-49d0bb7 behavior where all non-script/style text content goes through `escapeHtml()`, ensuring decoded entities are properly re-encoded before output.",
"id": "GHSA-9mrh-v2v3-xpfm",
"modified": "2026-04-16T21:08:29Z",
"published": "2026-04-16T21:08:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe/security/advisories/GHSA-9mrh-v2v3-xpfm"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40186"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe/commit/7ca2d16237c72718ef7e5c7ae0458e6027ac4f64"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "sanitize-html allowedTags Bypass via Entity-Decoded Text in nonTextTags Elements"
}
GHSA-9MRQ-CJGH-32G2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-09-13 13:22 – Updated: 2025-02-18 18:27rel noopener vulnerability
Impact
Clicking on smartbanner View link and navigating to 3rd party page leaves window.opener exposed. It may allow hostile 3rd parties to abuse window.opener, e.g. by redirection or injection on the original page with smartbanner.
Patches
rel="noopener" is automatically populated to links as of v1.14.1 which is a recommended upgrade to resolve the vulnerability.
Workarounds
If you can not upgrade to v1.14.1:
1. Ensure View link is only taking users to App Store or Google Play Store where security is guarded by respective app store security teams
2. If View link is going to a 3rd party page, limit smartbanner.js to be used on iOS that decreases the scope of the vulnerability since as of Safari 12.1, rel="noopener" is imposed on all target="_blank" links.
Following combination of smartbanner meta tags can be used to achieve the above:
```html
<meta name="smartbanner:enabled-platforms" content="none">
<meta name="smartbanner:include-user-agent-regex" content="Mobile.*Safari">
```
References
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in smartbanner.js
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "smartbanner.js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-25300"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-601",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T21:29:02Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "## rel noopener vulnerability\n\n### Impact\nClicking on smartbanner _View_ link and navigating to 3rd party page leaves `window.opener` exposed. It may allow hostile 3rd parties to abuse `window.opener`, e.g. by redirection or injection on the original page with smartbanner.\n\n### Patches\n`rel=\"noopener\"` is automatically populated to links as of `v1.14.1` which is a recommended upgrade to resolve the vulnerability.\n\n### Workarounds\nIf you can not upgrade to `v1.14.1`:\n1. Ensure _View_ link is only taking users to App Store or Google Play Store where security is guarded by respective app store security teams\n2. If _View_ link is going to a 3rd party page, limit smartbanner.js to be used on iOS that decreases the scope of the vulnerability since as of Safari 12.1, `rel=\"noopener\"` is imposed on all `target=\"_blank\"` links.\n\n Following combination of smartbanner meta tags can be used to achieve the above:\n\n ```html\n \u003cmeta name=\"smartbanner:enabled-platforms\" content=\"none\"\u003e\n \u003cmeta name=\"smartbanner:include-user-agent-regex\" content=\"Mobile.*Safari\"\u003e\n ```\n\n### References\n* [About rel=noopener](https://mathiasbynens.github.io/rel-noopener/)\n* [Safari 12.1 Release Notes](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari_release_notes/safari_12_1_release_notes#3130296)\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [smartbanner.js](https://github.com/ain/smartbanner.js/issues/new)",
"id": "GHSA-9mrq-cjgh-32g2",
"modified": "2025-02-18T18:27:07Z",
"published": "2019-09-13T13:22:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ain/smartbanner.js/security/advisories/GHSA-9mrq-cjgh-32g2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ain/smartbanner.js/commit/fce8c31dfe04033d9d005a89694d3e7a60784f89"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-9mrq-cjgh-32g2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ain/smartbanner.js"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "smartbanner.js rel noopener vulnerability"
}
GHSA-9MRR-7C8P-W8FG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:49 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:49An issue was discovered in the read-and-understood plugin 2.1 for WordPress. XSS exists via the wp-admin/options-general.php rnu_username_validation_pattern parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-5667"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-13T00:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in the read-and-understood plugin 2.1 for WordPress. XSS exists via the wp-admin/options-general.php rnu_username_validation_pattern parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-9mrr-7c8p-w8fg",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:49:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:49:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-5667"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/d4wner/Vulnerabilities-Report/blob/master/read-and-understood.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9MRV-456V-PF22
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-04-13 15:19 – Updated: 2021-03-22 23:06This affects the package vis-timeline before 7.4.4. An attacker with the ability to control the items of a Timeline element can inject additional script code into the generated application.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "vis-timeline"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.4.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-28487"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-03-22T23:06:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-22T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "This affects the package vis-timeline before 7.4.4.\n An attacker with the ability to control the items of a Timeline element can inject additional script code into the generated application.",
"id": "GHSA-9mrv-456v-pf22",
"modified": "2021-03-22T23:06:41Z",
"published": "2021-04-13T15:19:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-28487"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/visjs/vis-timeline/issues/838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/visjs/vis-timeline/pull/840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/visjs/vis-timeline/commit/a7ca349c7b3b6080efd05776ac77bb27176d4d3f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWERGITHUBVISJS-1063502"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-1063501"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-VISTIMELINE-1063500"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-site Scripting in vis-timeline"
}
GHSA-9MV3-MHFH-6VRG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-13 12:31 – Updated: 2026-01-20 15:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in wpdevelop Booking Calendar booking allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Booking Calendar: from n/a through <= 10.14.7.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64381"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-13T10:15:54Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in wpdevelop Booking Calendar booking allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Booking Calendar: from n/a through \u003c= 10.14.7.",
"id": "GHSA-9mv3-mhfh-6vrg",
"modified": "2026-01-20T15:31:55Z",
"published": "2025-11-13T12:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/booking/vulnerability/wordpress-booking-calendar-plugin-10-14-7-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/booking/vulnerability/wordpress-booking-calendar-plugin-10-14-7-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:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-9MV7-8VHM-9HC5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-02 03:31 – Updated: 2026-09-02 03:31NocoBase fails to sanitize rich text field values in the read renderer, allowing users with create permissions to store malicious HTML with event handlers. Attackers can write arbitrary markup through the collection API that executes in the browsers of all users viewing the affected record.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84701"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-02T01:17:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "NocoBase fails to sanitize rich text field values in the read renderer, allowing users with create permissions to store malicious HTML with event handlers. Attackers can write arbitrary markup through the collection API that executes in the browsers of all users viewing the affected record.",
"id": "GHSA-9mv7-8vhm-9hc5",
"modified": "2026-09-02T03:31:12Z",
"published": "2026-09-02T03:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nocobase/nocobase/issues/10416"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nocobase/nocobase"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nocobase/nocobase/blob/v2.2.5/packages/core/client/src/schema-component/antd/input/ReadPretty.tsx"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/nocobase-rich-text-field-stored-cross-site-scripting-via-api"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-9MVH-8J4J-QMWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-01 06:31 – Updated: 2024-05-01 06:31Dell OpenManage Enterprise, versions prior to 4.1.0, contains an XSS injection vulnerability in UI. A high privileged local attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to JavaScript injection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-28979"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-01T04:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dell OpenManage Enterprise, versions prior to 4.1.0, contains an XSS injection vulnerability in UI. A high privileged local attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to JavaScript injection.",
"id": "GHSA-9mvh-8j4j-qmwp",
"modified": "2024-05-01T06:31:41Z",
"published": "2024-05-01T06:31:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-28979"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000224642/dsa-2024-202-security-update-for-dell-openmanage-enterprise-vulnerability"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.