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.
67078 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WRQ8-7H3G-QFFV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:19 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:19I, Librarian version <=4.6 & 4.7 is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting in the temp.php resulting in an attacker being able to inject malicious client side scripting which will be executed in the browser of users if they visit the manipulated site.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1000236"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-11-17T04:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "I, Librarian version \u003c=4.6 \u0026 4.7 is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting in the temp.php resulting in an attacker being able to inject malicious client side scripting which will be executed in the browser of users if they visit the manipulated site.",
"id": "GHSA-wrq8-7h3g-qffv",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:19:57Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:19:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000236"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sec-consult.com/fxdata/seccons/prod/temedia/advisories_txt/20170509-0_I_Librarian_Multiple_vulnerabilities_v10.txt"
}
],
"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-WRQJ-GJCP-V24R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:13SmarterTools SmarterMail 16.x before build 7866 has stored XSS. The application fails to sanitize email content, thus allowing one to inject HTML and/or JavaScript into a page that will then be processed and stored by the application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-40377"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-08T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SmarterTools SmarterMail 16.x before build 7866 has stored XSS. The application fails to sanitize email content, thus allowing one to inject HTML and/or JavaScript into a page that will then be processed and stored by the application.",
"id": "GHSA-wrqj-gjcp-v24r",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:13:53Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:13:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40377"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.smartertools.com/smartermail/release-notes/current"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-WRQP-2JF5-H35R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-04 06:31 – Updated: 2025-12-04 06:31The Omnichannel for WooCommerce: Google, Amazon, eBay & Walmart Integration – Powered by Codisto plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the sync() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.65 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11727"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-04T05:16:23Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Omnichannel for WooCommerce: Google, Amazon, eBay \u0026 Walmart Integration \u2013 Powered by Codisto plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the sync() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.65 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-wrqp-2jf5-h35r",
"modified": "2025-12-04T06:31:30Z",
"published": "2025-12-04T06:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11727"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codistoconnect/trunk/connect.php#L2101"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codistoconnect/trunk/connect.php#L2117"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codistoconnect/trunk/connect.php#L3063"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codistoconnect/trunk/connect.php#L3248"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/codistoconnect/trunk/connect.php#L3249"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/f4e3b796-af9a-4403-8d9a-1b56d7253b45?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WRQR-6727-V5VQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-13 18:31 – Updated: 2024-08-14 18:32symphonycms <=2.7.10 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in the Comment component for articles.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-41614"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-13T17:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "symphonycms \u003c=2.7.10 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in the Comment component for articles.",
"id": "GHSA-wrqr-6727-v5vq",
"modified": "2024-08-14T18:32:37Z",
"published": "2024-08-13T18:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-41614"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OoLs5/VulDiscovery/blob/main/Symphony_CMS_XSS.pdf"
}
],
"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-WRR2-48MF-VGR7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-28 06:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:56The Font Awesome Integration plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'fawesome' shortcode in versions up to, and including, 5.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with contributor-level and above permissions to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-5233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-28T05:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Font Awesome Integration plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via \u0027fawesome\u0027 shortcode in versions up to, and including, 5.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with contributor-level and above permissions to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-wrr2-48mf-vgr7",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:56:47Z",
"published": "2023-09-28T06:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-5233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/font-awesome-integration/tags/5.0/font-awesome-integration.php#L48"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a2791f48-895f-4099-87ec-41aaac2494a2?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-WRR4-FFGM-8PQX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Takashi Matsuyama Browsing History allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Browsing History: from n/a through 1.3.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51885"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-19T17:15:43Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Takashi Matsuyama Browsing History allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Browsing History: from n/a through 1.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-wrr4-ffgm-8pqx",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:32Z",
"published": "2024-11-19T18:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51885"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/browsing-history/vulnerability/wordpress-browsing-history-plugin-1-3-1-stored-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/browsing-history/wordpress-browsing-history-plugin-1-3-1-stored-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-WRR5-P265-7252
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:00 – Updated: 2024-01-30 21:27A cross-site scripting vulnerability in Jenkins Warnings NG Plugin 5.0.0 and earlier allowed attacker with Job/Configure permission to inject arbitrary JavaScript in build overview pages.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.0.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.jenkins.plugins:warnings-ng"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10325"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-30T21:27:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-31T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site scripting vulnerability in Jenkins Warnings NG Plugin 5.0.0 and earlier allowed attacker with Job/Configure permission to inject arbitrary JavaScript in build overview pages.",
"id": "GHSA-wrr5-p265-7252",
"modified": "2024-01-30T21:27:43Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:00:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10325"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/warnings-ng-plugin/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#510---2019-5-31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2019-05-31/#SECURITY-1373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/05/31/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108540"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Warnings NG Plugin Cross-site scripting vulnerability"
}
GHSA-WRRJ-H57R-VX9P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-24 22:15 – Updated: 2025-06-24 20:17The Rust Security Response WG was notified that Cargo did not escape Cargo feature names when including them in the report generated by cargo build --timings. A malicious package included as a dependency may inject nearly arbitrary HTML here, potentially leading to XSS if the report is subsequently uploaded somewhere.
The severity of this vulnerability is "low" for users relying on dependencies from git, local paths, or alternative registries. Users who solely depend on crates.io are unaffected.
Note that by design Cargo allows code execution at build time, due to build scripts and procedural macros. The vulnerability in this advisory allows performing a subset of the possible damage in a harder to track down way. Your dependencies must still be trusted if you want to be protected from attacks, as it's possible to perform the same attacks with build scripts and procedural macros.
Overview
Rust 1.60.0 introduced cargo build --timings, which produces a report of how long the different steps of the build process took. It includes lists of Cargo features for each crate.
Prior to Rust 1.72, Cargo feature names were allowed to contain almost any characters (with some exceptions as used by the feature syntax), but it would produce a future incompatibility warning about them since Rust 1.49. crates.io is far more stringent about what it considers a valid feature name and has not allowed such feature names.
As the feature names defined in the Cargo.toml file were included unescaped in the timings report, they could be used to inject Javascript into the page. For example with a feature name like features = ["<img src='' onerror=alert(0)"]. If this report were subsequently uploaded to a domain that uses credentials, the injected Javascript could access resources from the website visitor.
This issue was fixed by turning the future incompatibility warning into an error.
Affected versions
The vulnerability is present in all versions of Cargo after and including 1.60.0. Rust 1.72, to be released on August 24, will include a fix for it.
Users whose dependencies are entirely on crates.io are unaffected.
Mitigations
We recommend users always excercise care in which package they download, by only including trusted dependencies in their projects. Please note that even with these vulnerabilities fixed, by design Cargo allows arbitrary code execution at build time thanks to build scripts and procedural macros: a malicious dependency will be able to cause damage regardless of these vulnerabilities.
crates.io has server-side checks preventing this attack, and there are no packages on crates.io exploiting these vulnerabilities. crates.io users still need to excercise care in choosing their dependencies though, as remote code execution is allowed by design there as well.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "cargo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.60.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.72"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-40030"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-08-24T22:15:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-24T23:15:09Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "The Rust Security Response WG was notified that Cargo did not escape Cargo feature names when including them in the report generated by `cargo build --timings`. A malicious package included as a dependency may inject nearly arbitrary HTML here, potentially leading to XSS if the report is subsequently uploaded somewhere.\n\nThe severity of this vulnerability is \"low\" for users relying on dependencies from git, local paths, or alternative registries. Users who solely depend on crates.io are unaffected.\n\n\nNote that **by design** Cargo allows code execution at build time, due to build scripts and procedural macros. The vulnerability in this advisory allows performing a subset of the possible damage in a harder to track down way. Your dependencies must still be trusted if you want to be protected from attacks, as it\u0027s possible to perform the same attacks with build scripts and procedural macros.\n\n# Overview\n\nRust 1.60.0 [introduced](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/04/07/Rust-1.60.0.html#cargo---timings) `cargo build --timings`, which produces a report of how long the different steps of the build process took. It includes lists of Cargo features for each crate.\n\nPrior to Rust 1.72, Cargo feature names were allowed to contain almost any characters (with some exceptions as used by the feature syntax), but it would produce a future incompatibility warning about them [since Rust 1.49](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/8814). crates.io is far more stringent about what it considers a valid feature name and has not allowed such feature names.\n\nAs the feature names defined in the `Cargo.toml` file were included unescaped in the timings report, they could be used to inject Javascript into the page. For example with a feature name like `features = [\"\u003cimg src=\u0027\u0027 onerror=alert(0)\"]`. If this report were subsequently uploaded to a domain that uses credentials, the injected Javascript could access resources from the website visitor.\n\nThis issue was fixed by [turning the future incompatibility warning into an error](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/12291).\n\n# Affected versions\n\nThe vulnerability is present in all versions of Cargo after and including 1.60.0. Rust 1.72, to be released on August 24, will include a fix for it.\n\nUsers whose dependencies are entirely on crates.io are unaffected.\n\n# Mitigations\n\nWe recommend users always excercise care in which package they download, by only including trusted dependencies in their projects. Please note that even with these vulnerabilities fixed, by design Cargo allows arbitrary code execution at build time thanks to build scripts and procedural macros: a malicious dependency will be able to cause damage regardless of these vulnerabilities.\n\ncrates.io has server-side checks preventing this attack, and there are no packages on crates.io exploiting these vulnerabilities. crates.io users still need to excercise care in choosing their dependencies though, as remote code execution is allowed by design there as well.",
"id": "GHSA-wrrj-h57r-vx9p",
"modified": "2025-06-24T20:17:26Z",
"published": "2023-08-24T22:15:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/security/advisories/GHSA-wrrj-h57r-vx9p"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/commit/9835622853f08be9a4b58ebe29dcec8f43b64b33"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/commit/f975722a0eac934c0722f111f107c4ea2f5c4365"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Malicious dependencies can inject arbitrary JavaScript into cargo-generated timing reports"
}
GHSA-WRRJ-R2J4-969W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:44 – Updated: 2023-07-24 20:54Persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Umbraco CMS 7.12.3 allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script via the Header Name of a content (Blog, Content Page, etc.). The vulnerability is exploited when updating or removing public access of a content.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "umbraco"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "7.12.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-17256"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-24T20:54:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-11-27T19:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Umbraco CMS 7.12.3 allows authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script via the Header Name of a content (Blog, Content Page, etc.). The vulnerability is exploited when updating or removing public access of a content.",
"id": "GHSA-wrrj-r2j4-969w",
"modified": "2023-07-24T20:54:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:44:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-17256"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Umbraco CMS vulnerable to stored XSS"
}
GHSA-WRRR-43GQ-GF8X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:38 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:38The Apache HTTP Server in Apple Mac OS X before 10.6.2 enables the HTTP TRACE method, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via unspecified web client software.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-2823"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-11-10T19:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Apache HTTP Server in Apple Mac OS X before 10.6.2 enables the HTTP TRACE method, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via unspecified web client software.",
"id": "GHSA-wrrr-43gq-gf8x",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:38:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:38:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-2823"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2009/Nov/msg00000.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3937"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDVSA-2009:300"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/36956"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3184"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.