GHSA-6688-9rhm-gjv2 CVE-2026-109345
DOMPurify: IN_PLACE returns a force-removed rawtext root whose text carries attacker markup — pure HTML reparse executes
- Severity
- 5.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.25%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.38% 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
3.4.16- Upgrade dompurify to this version or later
Description
Environment
- dompurify 3.4.15 (current npm release); reproduced independently on jsdom 30.0.1 and 29.1.1 (Node.js 20.x / 26.x)
- Config:
DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true })on a Node input;SAFE_FOR_XMLat its default (true)
Summary
The 3.4.9 fix for the IN_PLACE detached-root class added two protections on the IN_PLACE return path: a fail-closed TypeError in _forceRemove when a node selected for removal cannot be detached, and a _neutralizeSubtree pass (dist/purify.js line 1336) that strips non-allowlisted attributes from removed subtrees.
Both miss the rawtext text-content form. When the force-removed root is a rawtext element (<style>), the payload lives in the node's text: the node detaches fine (the TypeError guard is not reached), _neutralizeSubtree strips nothing (there are no attributes), and the IN_PLACE exit returns the detached, never-sanitized <style> whose text still carries live markup. Serializing that node and re-parsing it in plain HTML context materializes the payload — no foreign-content context required.
The same Node input sanitized without IN_PLACE returns an empty result: the only difference is the IN_PLACE return path handing the killed node back.
Steps to reproduce
const { JSDOM } = require('jsdom');
const createDOMPurify = require('dompurify'); // 3.4.15
const window = new JSDOM('').window;
const DOMPurify = createDOMPurify(window);
const styleRoot = window.document.createElement('style');
styleRoot.setAttribute('onclick', 'alert(1)'); // attribute payload
styleRoot.textContent = '</style><img src=x onerror=1>'; // text payload
window.document.body.appendChild(styleRoot);
const returned = DOMPurify.sanitize(styleRoot, { IN_PLACE: true });
console.log(returned === styleRoot); // true (same node)
console.log(styleRoot.parentNode === null); // true (detached)
console.log(styleRoot.outerHTML);
// <style></style><img src=x onerror=1></style>
console.log(styleRoot.getAttribute('onclick')); // null (attribute neutralized)
console.log(styleRoot.textContent); // '</style><img src=x onerror=1>' (text survives)
// plain HTML reparse (no foreign-content context involved):
const probe = window.document.createElement('div');
probe.innerHTML = returned.outerHTML || styleRoot.outerHTML;
console.log(probe.querySelectorAll('img').length); // 1
console.log(probe.querySelector('img').getAttribute('onerror')); // "1"
Observed on 3.4.15: one node, one call — the onclick attribute is neutralized while the text payload (</style><img src=x onerror=1>) survives verbatim; serializing and re-parsing the returned node in plain HTML context materializes the img with the live onerror handler.
Contrast on the same Node input without IN_PLACE: RETURN_DOM: true → <body></body>; RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT: true → 0 children — the payload is fully sanitized away. The only difference is the IN_PLACE return path.
Contrast on the removal trigger: SAFE_FOR_XML: false → the node is not removed (detached stays false); plain CSS text → not removed. The removal is gated by the mXSS text probes and happens specifically because the serialized node would re-open tags on reparse.
Root cause
_isUnsafeNode (dist/purify.js 3.4.15, lines 1700–1714) removes nodes whose literal text would re-open tags on reparse — shape (b) in the source comment is "text-only content that already carries the element's OWN end tag", detected by the LITERAL_TEXT_CLOSE probe (line 385) alongside the ELEMENT_MARKUP_PROBE (line 339) rules. _forceRemove (line 1122) records the node in DOMPurify.removed ({element}) and detaches it. The removal is intentional: the upstream comment states these shapes are removed because the literal serializer emits them verbatim for the HTML parser to re-open.
The IN_PLACE exit then hands the force-removed root back to the caller — the very node whose removal DOMPurify.removed just recorded (verified: DOMPurify.removed.some(e => e.element === root) is true on the returned instance). The 3.4.9 _neutralizeSubtree pass (line 1336) addresses only the attribute form — its own docstring: "walks a removed subtree and strips every attribute" (purpose: cancel queued resource events). Rawtext text content is out of its scope, so the removal that was performed specifically to prevent reparse is undone by returning the node: you removed it to stop the reparse, then returned it.
Differential (one node, one call, same removal path): the onclick attribute is neutralized by the existing pass while the text payload survives verbatim — the attribute axis is covered, the text axis is the gap.
Impact
Identical blast radius to the published IN_PLACE family: an application that sanitizes a Node in IN_PLACE mode and re-inserts (or serializes and then re-inserts) the result materializes attacker markup in plain HTML context: script execution in the page. Moving the returned node via appendChild alone is safe; the round trip through serialization is what fires the payload. No foreign-content context is required with the close-tag payload.
Affected versions
- Verified live: 3.4.15 (current).
- Source-verified: the attribute-only
_neutralizeSubtreeand the IN_PLACE return path are present in 3.4.9–3.4.14; releases before 3.4.9 predate the fix entirely (unconditional return; individual pre-3.4.9 releases not dynamically tested). - Per cure53 advisory convention the affected range is reported as
<= 3.4.15(current at time of writing).
Suggested remediation
Primary (root-cause, covers every form): at the IN_PLACE exit, check whether the returned root was recorded during sanitization — DOMPurify.removed.some(e => e.element === root) — and fail closed: throw the same TypeError style used by the 3.4.9 detach guard ("a node selected for removal could not be safely returned; refusing to sanitize in place"), or return null. This is consistent with the existing fail-closed design and covers all present and future root-kill reasons in one check.
Secondary (form-specific): extend _neutralizeSubtree to neutralize text content of rawtext descendants — the elements in LITERAL_TEXT_ELEMENT_NAMES (style, script, xmp, iframe, noembed, noframes, plaintext, noscript) — by rewriting textContent to a defanged form, matching the probe coverage of _isUnsafeNode/LITERAL_TEXT_CLOSE.
A regression test asserting that a force-removed rawtext root comes back with no /<[/\w!]/ match in textContent (and is not returned at all under the primary fix) prevents re-introduction.
Prior art / differentiation
- GHSA-r47g-fvhr-h676 (fixed 3.4.6): clobbered-form root removal — different trigger; this report's root is a normal allowlisted
styleelement killed by the text probe. - GHSA-55q2-fjhq-7xh7 (low): IN_PLACE hook removal leaves a detached subtree executable — the attribute-form twin (hook-stripped subtree retains onload-class handlers). This report's rawtext text form is not covered by
_neutralizeSubtree's attribute stripping and is not that advisory. - GHSA-h8r8-wccr-v5f2 (medium): mXSS via re-contextualization in the standard (non-IN_PLACE) serialize path — different mechanism; IN_PLACE is not involved.
- The 3.4.9 release notes credit @mozfreedyb for the IN_PLACE handling improvements that this residual escapes on the text axis.
Applicability scope (stated up front)
The payload materializes when the application serializes and re-parses the sanitizer output (innerHTML assignment, template rendering, markdown/HTML round trips) or otherwise consumes the returned node's markup. Moving the returned node via appendChild alone does not trigger it. Applications that pass live, connected attacker trees into IN_PLACE are explicitly warned against by upstream's own source comment; this report concerns the serialize-and-reinsert consumption pattern that the IN_PLACE mode exists to serve.
Affected versions
npm
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.
dompurify npm → 3.4.16
- npm
npm install dompurify@3.4.16- yarn
yarn add dompurify@3.4.16- pnpm
pnpm add dompurify@3.4.16
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 5.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Active
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 6.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- 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.
References
Advisories
Fixes and patches
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 DOMPurify SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass: split template expressions survive in attached shadow root content on DOM output modes | Critical | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-mrv2-3pqr-j5jr DOMPurify IN_PLACE: hook that removes a parent or sibling leaves the detached subtree's event handlers armed (incomplete fix for GHSA-p98j-92pf-mc4p) | High | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-c6gr-qvv4-5v3f DOMPurify: SMIL attributeName=href guard is skipped when PARSER_MEDIA_TYPE is application/xhtml+xml | Medium | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-p98j-92pf-mc4p DOMPurify: IN_PLACE: node-removing afterSanitize hook leaves detached subtree event handlers armed, causing DOM XSS | Low | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-55q2-fjhq-7xh7 DOMPurify: IN_PLACE hook removal leaves a detached subtree executable, causing XSS | Medium | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-c2j3-45gr-mqc4 DOMPurify: `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING` bypasses `afterSanitizeElements` for allowed custom elements. | Low | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-cmwh-pvxp-8882 DOMPurify: Permanent `ALLOWED_ATTR` pollution via `setConfig()` bypassing the hook clone-guard (incomplete fix of the 3.4.7 hook-pollution patch) | Medium | Also affects dompurify |
| GHSA-vxr8-fq34-vvx9 DOMPurify: Trusted Types policy survives `clearConfig()` and can poison later `RETURN_TRUSTED_TYPE` output | Low | Also affects dompurify |
Credits: h-t-m
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