GHSA-c2j3-45gr-mqc4 CVE-2026-66010
DOMPurify: `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING` bypasses `afterSanitizeElements` for allowed custom elements.
- Severity
- 2.1 / 10
- Low · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.21%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 11.97% 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
- CWE-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
- Fix
3.4.12- Upgrade dompurify to this version or later
Description
Summary
There is a possible hook-policy inconsistency in DOMPurify 3.4.11 involving CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.
When a custom element is allowed via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, it appears that the element does not go through afterSanitizeElements in the same way as a normal element. As a result, an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements as a security policy layer to strip sensitive attributes from all elements may see those attributes removed from normal elements but preserved on allowed custom elements.
This does not appear to be a direct DOMPurify XSS or a case where DOMPurify directly allows executable payloads. The preserved value is still inert at sanitize time. The issue becomes relevant when the allowed custom element later re-injects that attribute value into an HTML sink such as innerHTML, creating a second-order XSS gadget.
Details
The issue appears to originate from the control flow in src/purify.ts: line 1672~1691
const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
currentNode: any,
tagName: string
): boolean {
/* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
if (
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
) {
return false;
}
if (
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
) {
return false;
}
}
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING is parsed from user configuration at src/purify.ts: line 741~748
const customElementHandling =
objectHasOwnProperty(cfg, 'CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING') &&
cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING &&
typeof cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING === 'object'
? clone(cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING)
: create(null);
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING = create(null);
In particular, tagNameCheck, attributeNameCheck, and allowCustomizedBuiltInElements are copied into the internal CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING object there.
During element sanitization, _sanitizeElements() checks whether a node is forbidden or not allowlisted at src/purify.ts: line 1805~1814
/* Remove element if anything forbids its presence */
if (
FORBID_TAGS[tagName] ||
(!(
EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck instanceof Function &&
EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck(tagName)
) &&
!ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName])
) {
return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName);
}
If so, it immediately delegates to _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName) and returns its boolean result.
Inside _sanitizeDisallowedNode(), the custom-element-specific allow path is implemented at src/purify.ts: line 1672~1692
const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
currentNode: any,
tagName: string
): boolean {
/* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
if (
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
) {
return false;
}
if (
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
) {
return false;
}
}
If the node is treated as a basic custom element and CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck matches, the function returns false immediately at line 1682 or 1689, meaning “do not remove this node”.
That early return false is significant because control returns directly to _sanitizeElements() via the return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(...) at line 1813. As a result, the later logic in _sanitizeElements() is skipped for that custom element instance, including:
- the namespace validation at
src/purify.ts: line 1816~1826
* Check whether element has a valid namespace.
Realm-safe check (GHSA-hpcv-96wg-7vj8): use the cached Node.prototype
nodeType getter rather than `instanceof Element`, which is realm-
bound and short-circuits to false for any node minted in a different
realm — letting a foreign-realm element with a forbidden namespace
slip past the namespace check entirely. */
const nt = getNodeType ? getNodeType(currentNode) : currentNode.nodeType;
if (nt === NODE_TYPE.element && !_checkValidNamespace(currentNode)) {
_forceRemove(currentNode);
return true;
}
- the fallback-tag mXSS check at
src/purify.ts: line 1828~1837
/* Make sure that older browsers don't get fallback-tag mXSS */
if (
(tagName === 'noscript' ||
tagName === 'noembed' ||
tagName === 'noframes') &&
regExpTest(EXPRESSIONS.FALLBACK_TAG_CLOSE, currentNode.innerHTML)
) {
_forceRemove(currentNode);
return true;
}
- most importantly for this report, the
afterSanitizeElementshook dispatch atsrc/purify.ts: line 1850~1851.
/* Execute a hook if present */
_executeHooks(hooks.afterSanitizeElements, currentNode, null);
In other words, a normal allowlisted element continues through _sanitizeElements() and reaches hooks.afterSanitizeElements, but a disallowed-by-default element that is revived by the CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck path does not. This creates a policy inconsistency: an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements to remove an attribute from all elements will observe that the policy is applied to normal elements but not to custom elements allowed through CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.
In the PoC, the application hook removes data-bio from ordinary elements, but the same attribute remains on <x-bio> because the custom-element keep path bypasses afterSanitizeElements. The attribute itself is inert at sanitize time and DOMPurify is not directly allowing executable SVG/HTML through. The security impact appears when the application-defined custom element later reads the preserved data-bio value in connectedCallback() and writes it to innerHTML, turning the preserved attribute into a second-order XSS gadget.
PoC
Reproduced on DOMPurify 3.4.11.
Steps
- Save the following HTML to a file, for example
poc.html. - Open it in a browser.
- Observe that the
divcontrol losesdata-bio, while the allowed custom element keeps it. - Observe that after
connectedCallback()runs, the candidate payload is reinserted into the DOM and executes through the custom element’s own sink.
HTML PoC
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dompurify/3.4.11/purify.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<pre id="result"></pre>
<script>
window.__controlFired = false;
window.__candidateFired = false;
customElements.define("x-bio", class extends HTMLElement {
connectedCallback() {
const bio = this.getAttribute("data-bio");
if (bio) this.innerHTML = bio;
}
});
DOMPurify.addHook("afterSanitizeElements", node => {
if (node.hasAttribute && node.hasAttribute("data-bio")) {
node.removeAttribute("data-bio");
}
});
const config = {
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING: {
tagNameCheck: /^x-/
}
};
const controlInput =
'<div data-bio="<img src=x onerror=window.__controlFired=true>"></div>';
const candidateInput =
'<x-bio data-bio="<img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true>"></x-bio>';
const cleanControl = DOMPurify.sanitize(controlInput, config);
const cleanCandidate = DOMPurify.sanitize(candidateInput, config);
const container = document.createElement("div");
container.innerHTML = cleanCandidate;
document.body.appendChild(container);
setTimeout(() => {
document.getElementById("result").textContent =
"This is not direct DOMPurify XSS.\n" +
"The payload becomes executable only after x-bio writes data-bio into innerHTML.\n\n" +
"control: " + cleanControl + "\n" +
"candidate: " + cleanCandidate + "\n" +
"after connectedCallback: " + container.innerHTML + "\n" +
"control fired: " + window.__controlFired + "\n" +
"candidate fired: " + window.__candidateFired;
}, 100);
</script>
</body>
</html>
Expected result
control: <div></div>
candidate: <x-bio data-bio="<img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true>"></x-bio>
after connectedCallback: <x-bio data-bio="..."><img src="x" onerror="window.__candidateFired=true"></x-bio>
control fired: false
candidate fired: true
This is output of HTML PoC.
<img width="1917" height="961" alt="poc" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/80e22989-5779-42f8-8ffb-106e9a4c2b10" />
Impact
This does not appear to affect DOMPurify’s default configuration as a direct sanitizer bypass.
The impact is limited to applications that:
- enable
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING, - rely on
afterSanitizeElementsas a security policy layer, - expect that hook to apply uniformly to all surviving elements,
- and have allowed custom elements that later re-inject preserved attribute values into
innerHTMLor another HTML sink.
In that situation, the behavior can become a second-order XSS gadget because a security-relevant attribute is removed from normal elements but remains on allowed custom elements.
Possible fixes or mitigations might include
- ensuring that allowed custom elements also consistently pass through
afterSanitizeElements - documenting clearly that elements preserved via
CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLINGmay not participate in the same post-element hook flow as normal allowlisted elements.
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 → 3.4.12
- npm
npm install dompurify@3.4.12- yarn
yarn add dompurify@3.4.12- pnpm
pnpm add dompurify@3.4.12
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 2.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- 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
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.
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.
CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
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-6688-9rhm-gjv2 DOMPurify: IN_PLACE returns a force-removed rawtext root whose text carries attacker markup — pure HTML reparse executes | 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-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: Rikuxx0
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