GHSA-2qvq-rjwj-gvw9 CVE-2026-33916
Handlebars.js has Prototype Pollution Leading to XSS through Partial Template Injection
- Severity
- 4.7 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.28%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1321 Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
4.7.9- Upgrade handlebars to this version or later
Description
Summary
resolvePartial() in the Handlebars runtime resolves partial names via a plain property lookup on options.partials without guarding against prototype-chain traversal. When Object.prototype has been polluted with a string value whose key matches a partial reference in a template, the polluted string is used as the partial body and rendered without HTML escaping, resulting in reflected or stored XSS.
Description
The root cause is in lib/handlebars/runtime.js inside resolvePartial() and invokePartial():
// Vulnerable: plain bracket access traverses Object.prototype
partial = options.partials[options.name];
hasOwnProperty is never checked, so if Object.prototype has been seeded with a key whose name matches a partial reference in the template (e.g. widget), the lookup succeeds and the polluted string is returned. The runtime emits a prototype-access warning, but the partial is still resolved and its content is inserted into the rendered output unescaped. This contradicts the documented security model and is distinct from CVE-2021-23369 and CVE-2021-23383, which addressed data property access rather than partial template resolution.
Prerequisites for exploitation:
- The target application must be vulnerable to prototype pollution (e.g. via
qs,minimist, or any querystring/JSON merge sink). - The attacker must know or guess the name of a partial reference used in a template.
Proof of Concept
const Handlebars = require('handlebars');
// Step 1: Prototype pollution (via qs, minimist, or another vector)
Object.prototype.widget = '<img src=x onerror="alert(document.domain)">';
// Step 2: Normal template that references a partial
const template = Handlebars.compile('<div>Welcome! {{> widget}}</div>');
// Step 3: Render — XSS payload injected unescaped
const output = template({});
// Output: <div>Welcome! <img src=x onerror="alert(document.domain)"></div>
The runtime prints a prototype access warning claiming "access has been denied," but the partial still resolves and returns the polluted value.
Workarounds
- Apply
Object.freeze(Object.prototype)early in application startup to prevent prototype pollution. Note: this may break other libraries. - Use the Handlebars runtime-only build (
handlebars/runtime), which does not compile templates and reduces the attack surface.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| handlebars | >= 4.0.0, < 4.7.9 |
4.7.9 |
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.
handlebars npm → 4.7.9
- npm
npm install handlebars@4.7.9- yarn
yarn add handlebars@4.7.9- pnpm
pnpm add handlebars@4.7.9
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
- Architecture and Design: By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
- Implementation: When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
- Implementation: By using an object without prototypes (via Object.create(null) ), adding object prototype attributes by accessing the prototype via the special attributes becomes impossible, mitigating this weakness.
- Implementation: Map can be used instead of objects in most cases. If Map methods are used instead of object attributes, it is not possible to access the object prototype or modify it.
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.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-8r5x-fm3f-whwj Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via AST Type Confusion in compile (bypass of CVE-2026-33937) | Critical | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-p8wg-vrv2-v86f Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Own Property Check Bypass | Critical | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-xw65-4hp5-5hc7 Handlebars: JavaScript Injection via Unsafe Inline Embedding of Precompiled Templates | Medium | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-7rx3-28cr-v5wh Handlebars.js has a Prototype Method Access Control Gap via Missing __lookupSetter__ Blocklist Entry | Medium | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-442j-39wm-28r2 Handlebars.js has a Property Access Validation Bypass in container.lookup | Low | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-xjpj-3mr7-gcpf Handlebars.js has JavaScript Injection in CLI Precompiler via Unescaped Names and Options | High | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-xhpv-hc6g-r9c6 Handlebars.js has JavaScript Injection via AST Type Confusion when passing an object as dynamic partial | High | Also affects handlebars |
| GHSA-9cx6-37pm-9jff Handlebars.js has Denial of Service via Malformed Decorator Syntax in Template Compilation | High | Also affects handlebars |
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