CVE-2026-84164 (GCVE-0-2026-84164)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-11-06 10:35 – Updated: 2026-11-06 10:35
VLAI
Title
Stored XSS in the static HTML report export, because json.dumps does not escape the markup character
Summary
The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML. The input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one.
Severity
0 (None)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
CWE
  • CWE-79 - Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting')
Assigner
ERIC CNA under the mitre root
CNA scorecard C 70/100 over 15 records in the last 180 days details
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version CPE status
Ericsson CodeChecker Affected: 0 , < 6.29.3 (semver)
guessed Create a notification for this product.
Credits
Arpit Jain
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "CodeChecker",
          "vendor": "Ericsson",
          "versions": [
            {
              "changes": [
                {
                  "at": "6.29.3",
                  "status": "unaffected"
                }
              ],
              "lessThan": "6.29.3",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "reporter",
          "value": "Arpit Jain"
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cdiv\u003eThe HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eThe input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one.\u003c/div\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.\n\n\n\n\nThe input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV4_0": {
            "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackRequirements": "NONE",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "baseScore": 0,
            "baseSeverity": "NONE",
            "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
            "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
            "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
            "version": "4.0",
            "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
            "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
          },
          "format": "CVSS",
          "scenarios": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "GENERAL"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-79",
              "description": "CWE-79 Improper neutralization of input during web page generation (\u0027cross-site scripting\u0027)",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
        "orgId": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
        "shortName": "ERIC"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "url": "https://github.com/Ericsson/codechecker/security/advisories/GHSA-6w9g-677j-q2xq"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "Stored XSS in the static HTML report export, because json.dumps does not escape the markup character",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.5"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
    "assignerShortName": "ERIC",
    "cveId": "CVE-2026-84164",
    "datePublished": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
    "dateReserved": "2026-09-01T08:00:17.055Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.2",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "epss": {
      "cve": "CVE-2026-84164",
      "date": "2026-11-08",
      "epss": "0.00274",
      "percentile": "0.19891"
    },
    "nvd": {
      "cve": {
        "affected": [
          {
            "affectedData": [
              {
                "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
                "product": "CodeChecker",
                "vendor": "Ericsson",
                "versions": [
                  {
                    "changes": [
                      {
                        "at": "6.29.3",
                        "status": "unaffected"
                      }
                    ],
                    "lessThan": "6.29.3",
                    "status": "affected",
                    "version": "0",
                    "versionType": "semver"
                  }
                ]
              }
            ],
            "source": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf"
          }
        ],
        "cveTags": [],
        "descriptions": [
          {
            "lang": "en",
            "value": "The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.\n\n\n\n\nThe input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one."
          }
        ],
        "id": "CVE-2026-84164",
        "lastModified": "2026-11-06T11:17:17.327",
        "metrics": {
          "cvssMetricV40": [
            {
              "cvssData": {
                "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "attackComplexity": "LOW",
                "attackRequirements": "NONE",
                "attackVector": "NETWORK",
                "availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "baseScore": 0.0,
                "baseSeverity": "NONE",
                "confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
                "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
                "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
                "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
                "userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
                "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
                "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
                "version": "4.0",
                "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
                "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
                "vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
                "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
              },
              "source": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
              "type": "Secondary"
            }
          ]
        },
        "published": "2026-11-06T11:17:17.327",
        "references": [
          {
            "source": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
            "url": "https://github.com/Ericsson/codechecker/security/advisories/GHSA-6w9g-677j-q2xq"
          }
        ],
        "sourceIdentifier": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
        "vulnStatus": "Received",
        "weaknesses": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "en",
                "value": "CWE-79"
              }
            ],
            "source": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
            "type": "Secondary"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.