Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-c9cv-mq2m-ppp3 CVE-2026-56326 CVE-2026-56697 CVE-2026-56698

Nuxt: URL-handling weaknesses in `navigateTo` and `reloadNuxtApp`: SSR open redirect, client-side script execution via the `open` option, and protocol-relative bypass in `reloadNuxtApp`

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.41%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.59% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
4.4.7
Upgrade nuxt to this version or later

Description

Summary

Three weaknesses in Nuxt's client-navigation URL handling, all reachable from documented public APIs (navigateTo and reloadNuxtApp):

  1. (CVE-2026-56326) SSR open redirect in navigateTo via path-normalisation bypass. navigateTo decided whether a target was external by inspecting the raw input with hasProtocol(..., { acceptRelative: true }). Inputs such as /..//evil.com, /.//evil.com, /%2e%2e//evil.com, or /app/..//evil.com slipped past that check because they start with /, but WHATWG URL parsing then normalised them to the protocol-relative pathname //evil.com. The normalised value was written to the Location response header and into the <meta http-equiv="refresh"> body of the SSR redirect page, so a victim's browser would resolve the redirect cross-origin to the attacker's host.

  2. (CVE-2026-56698) Client-side script execution via navigateTo({ open: ... }). The client-side early-open handler called window.open(toPath, ...) without applying the isScriptProtocol check that gates the normal navigateTo path. A target of javascript:... (or another script-capable scheme) passed to navigateTo(url, { open: { ... } }) therefore executed in the application's origin instead of being rejected.

  3. (CVE-2026-56697) Open redirect in reloadNuxtApp via protocol-relative bypass. reloadNuxtApp({ path }) rejects script-capable protocols by parsing the path with new URL(path, window.location.href) and checking the resolved protocol against isScriptProtocol. Protocol-relative paths such as //evil.com resolve to the current page's protocol (https:), which passes that check; the value is then assigned to window.location.href, which the browser treats as a cross-origin redirect. This is the same protocol-relative bypass family as (1), in a different sink.

Impact

For (1), the practical risk is phishing or OAuth-code theft against any Nuxt app that forwards user-controlled input (for example a ?next= query parameter on a login route) into navigateTo on the server. The framework documents that navigateTo blocks external hosts unless external: true is passed, so maintainers commonly rely on it as the safe path for post-login redirects.

For (2), any app that passes a user-controlled URL into navigateTo(url, { open: { ... } }) was vulnerable to reflected XSS in the application's first-party origin.

For (3), any app that forwards user-controlled input into reloadNuxtApp({ path }) could be redirected cross-origin for phishing or OAuth-code theft, even on releases that already shipped the isScriptProtocol guard added by #35115.

Patches

Fixed in nuxt@4.4.7 and backported to nuxt@3.21.7. The three sinks are addressed by:

Workarounds

  • For (1): validate redirect targets before passing them to navigateTo, for example reject any input where new URL(target, 'http://localhost').pathname starts with //, or only accept a known allow-list of paths.
  • For (2): reject any user-controlled URL whose protocol is not in an allow-list (typically just http: and https:) before passing it to navigateTo({ open: ... }).
  • For (3): same shape as (1). Reject paths starting with // (or where new URL(path, window.location.href).host !== window.location.host) before passing to reloadNuxtApp({ path }).

References

  • CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

Credits

Reported by Anthropic / Claude as ANT-2026-S08HN6DH through Anthropic's coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme.

The reloadNuxtApp protocol-relative bypass (sink 3) was independently reported by @alcls01111 via GitHub's coordinated disclosure flow (GHSA-w7fp-2cfv-4837), closed as a duplicate of this advisory.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nuxt
>= 4.0.0, < 4.4.7
4.4.7
nuxt
>= 3.5.0, < 3.21.7
3.21.7

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.

nuxt npm → 4.4.7

npm
npm install nuxt@4.4.7
yarn
yarn add nuxt@4.4.7
pnpm
pnpm add nuxt@4.4.7

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
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-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.

How to prevent it
  • 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. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
  • Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
  • 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. For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
  • 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. Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
  • 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].

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

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9v7c-q64q-vv33
Nuxt: Dot segments in the request path bypass `server/middleware` path checks and server route rules on page routes
Medium Also affects nuxt
GHSA-xfq5-w38q-pc2x
Nuxt server islands render `useHeadSafe` input without sanitisation
Medium Also affects nuxt
GHSA-vjh5-4x84-xrqp
Nuxt: Server-side route rules (`redirect`, `headers`, `proxy`, `ssr`) are skipped for case-variant paths when routing is case-insensitive
Medium Also affects nuxt
GHSA-6gq8-jgmh-3ffp
Nuxt: Route rules are matched against the raw request path, so a percent-encoded segment can bypass `appMiddleware` on dynamic and catch-all routes
Medium Also affects nuxt
GHSA-jjm6-p2m9-9w4x
Nuxt: Incomplete fix for GHSA-934w-87qh-qr26: a `javascript:` URL prefixed with an ASCII control character executes from `<NuxtLink>` when `pages` is disabled
Low Also affects nuxt
GHSA-7c4v-fwgw-9rf7
Nuxt dev server discloses project root and workspace UUID via the Chrome DevTools workspace endpoint
Medium Also affects nuxt
GHSA-9pgf-384g-p7mv
Nuxt: Unauthenticated CPU exhaustion parsing and hashing the Nuxt island endpoint body before hash validation
High Also affects nuxt
GHSA-9473-5f9j-94wq
Nuxt: Server-Side Remote Code Execution via Runtime Template Injection in Nuxt Server Island Props
High Also affects nuxt
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