Skip to content

GHSA-2p49-hgcm-8545 CVE-2026-73650

SVGO removeScripts plugin leaves some executable scripts intact

High npm
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.76% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CWE-184 Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs
Fix
2.8.3
Upgrade svgo to this version or later

Description

Summary

SVGO's removeScripts plugin (disabled by default) removes scripts from the SVG, however executable scripts were left intact in some cases. If a consumer relied on this plugin for sanitization and served them to users, these SVGs could open up doors to XSS.

Details

SVGO has a plugin for removing scripts from an SVG, which removes:

  • <script> elements
  • JavaScript URIs (v4 and v3 only)
  • on… event handlers (v4 and v3 only)

While SVGO is not a sanitization library, SVGO continues to maintain the plugin for those already using it for this purpose.

However, there were two problems:

  • SVGO did not check namespaced/prefixed script elements, for example if one declared an explicit prefix for the SVG namespace ( <svg:script>) instead of using the default namespace ( <script>), the <svg:script> tag would be left intact.
  • SVGO case sensitively matched JavaScript URIs, but it should've been case-insensitive.

Proof of Concept

import { optimize } from 'svgo';

/** Presume that this string was obtained in some other way, such as network. */
const original = `
  <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:uwu="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" viewBox="0 0 100 100" version="1.1">
    <a uwu:href="JavaScript:(() =&gt; { alert(document.cookie) })();"><text y="30">uwu</text></a>
    <svg:script>
      alert(document.cookie);
    </svg:script>
  </svg>
`;

optimize(original, {
  plugins: ['removeScripts']
});
// Did not remove <svg:script> or uwu:href="JavaScript:…—still executed by browsers.

Impact

If you run SVGO on untrusted input (e.g., user uploads to a web application) and you depended on removeScripts, then some scripts may still be present. If that SVG was then opened directly by another user on the same domain, it could invoke scripts that could read local storage or cookies.

This may affect you if you have enabled one of the following:

SVGO Version Plugin Name
v4 removeScripts
v3 removeScriptElement
v2 removeScriptElement
v1 removeScriptElement

It's unlikely to impact users who just use SVGO locally on their own SVGs or in build pipelines.

Patches

>= 3.0.0, <= 4.0.1

SVGO patched v4.0.2 and v3.3.4. Just upgrade the dependency using your preferred package manager! For example:

yarn up svgo

# or if SVGO is a nested dependency
yarn up -R svgo

The proposed fix is to improve our namespace-aware handling to explicitly act on the default namespace, SVG namespace, and XHTML namespace only. This handles all scripts that are executed by browsers, but will leave intact custom prefixes that happen to have an element called <*:script> which clients shouldn't treat as executable.

>= 2.0.0, <= 2.8.2

SVGO patched v2.8.3, however SVGO v2 explicitly only implements and documents that it will remove <script> elements and nothing more. It has the namespace aware handling for tags like <svg:script> or <xhtml:script>, but has not been updated to remove JavaScript URIs or event handlers like >= v3. If this is something you need, please upgrade to v4 or v3, or reach for one of the documented workarounds at the end.

>= 1.0.0, <= 1.3.2

SVGO v1 has been deprecated for a while now and won't be patched. Please upgrade to a more recent version! If something is preventing you from doing so, please reach out! We're happy to expand our migration guides or support you if you're having trouble.

Workarounds

If your motivation for enabling the plugin is SVG sanitization, consider reaching for a dedicated SVG sanitization tool and invoke it before passing the SVG to SVGO.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
svgo
>= 1.0.0, < 2.8.3
2.8.3
svgo
>= 3.0.0, < 3.3.4
3.3.4
svgo
>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.2
4.0.2
svgo
>= 1.0.0, < 2.8.3
2.8.3
svgo
>= 3.0.0, < 3.3.4
3.3.4
svgo
>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.2
4.0.2

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

svgo npm → 2.8.3

npm
npm install svgo@2.8.3
yarn
yarn add svgo@2.8.3
pnpm
pnpm add svgo@2.8.3

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

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.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • 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: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property 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.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: 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.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • Implementation: 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.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: 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.
  • Implementation: 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 ef
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • Operation: 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].
  • Operation, Implementation: 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.

CWE-184: Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity. Ensure that you are using other protection mechanisms that only identify "good" input - such as lists of allowed inputs - and ensure that you are properly encoding your outputs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-w27v-7q3p-w38r
SVGO: removeScripts allows executable links through namespace and control-character bypasses
High Also affects svgo
GHSA-4vpr-x523-8j87
SVGO: removeScripts incompletely sanitizes executable HTML in SVG foreignObject elements
Medium Also affects svgo
GHSA-xpqw-6gx7-v673
SVGO DoS through entity expansion in DOCTYPE (Billion Laughs)
High Also affects svgo
EEF-CVE-2026-117645
Phoenix.HTML vulnerable to attribute injection via unvalidated attribute names in attributes_escape/1
Not rated yet Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-v3f7-2p4r-mwfw
Keycloak vulnerable to cross-site scripting (xss) via case-insensitive uri validation bypass
High Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-mf2p-h6hf-fcwm
TinyMCE Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability using media plugin `data-mce-object` serialization
High Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-hhww-mrg2-969h
LiteLLM vulnerable to reflected XSS in /sso/debug/callback
Medium Same weakness, CWE-79
GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7
DOMPurify SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass: split template expressions survive in attached shadow root content on DOM output modes
Critical Same weakness, CWE-79

Credits: Admu-Dev

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor