GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 CVE-2026-116804
DOMPurify SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass: split template expressions survive in attached shadow root content on DOM output modes
- Severity
- 9.2 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.18%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 7.41% 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
3.4.17- Upgrade dompurify to this version or later
Description
Summary
When DOMPurify is configured with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true together with a DOM-returning mode (RETURN_DOM: true, RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT: true, or IN_PLACE: true), template expressions such as {{...}}, ${...}, and <%...%> survive sanitization inside the text content of an attached shadow root. The post-walk safety net _scrubTemplateExpressions (src/purify.ts:1717) was extended to recurse into <template>.content, but it never recurses into attached shadow roots. An attacker who can supply a DOM node carrying a shadow root (the IN_PLACE and shadow-aware RETURN_DOM surfaces) can split an expression across text nodes separated by disallowed elements; after those elements are removed the fragments become adjacent and serialize into a complete expression that a downstream template engine will evaluate.
Root Cause
SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES neutralizes template expressions through two mechanisms: a per-text-node strip during the main walk (_stripTemplateExpressions, applied in _sanitizeElements at src/purify.ts:2246), and a final post-walk pass (_scrubTemplateExpressions, src/purify.ts:1717) that normalizes adjacent text nodes and re-strips expressions that only form after merging. The per-node strip cannot catch an expression that is split into individual fragments, because each fragment fails the delimiter regexes. The post-walk pass is the only mechanism that would catch the merged form, but it is structurally unable to reach shadow root content.
_scrubTemplateExpressions (src/purify.ts:1717-1751):
- node.normalize() at line 1718 does not merge text nodes inside shadow roots (DOM spec).
- NodeIterator at lines 1723-1731 does not descend into shadow trees (DOM spec).
- Explicit recursion at lines 1743-1750 enters <template>.content only, via
querySelectorAll('template'); there is no equivalent recursion into attached
shadow roots.
Shadow roots are sanitized earlier by _sanitizeShadowDOM (src/purify.ts:2710), which
applies the per-node strip but never performs the post-walk normalize-and-rescrub.
Shadow root text nodes are therefore sanitized only per-node and never re-examined as a merged unit.
Impact
An attacker who controls DOM-node input containing an attached shadow root can inject template expressions that survive sanitization and are later evaluated by the application's template engine. In client-side contexts this yields cross-site scripting; in a server-side template context it can escalate to template injection. Exploitation requires non-default application configuration: the application must enable SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES and a DOM-returning mode, pass a DOM node that already has an attached shadow root, and feed the sanitized shadow root content into a template evaluator. The shadow root does not have to be built programmatically with attachShadow: in engines that support declarative shadow DOM, attacker-supplied markup containing <template shadowrootmode="open"> parsed through setHTMLUnsafe or Document.parseHTMLUnsafe produces the same attached shadow root, so a plain HTML string reaches the gap once the application is configured this way. Demonstrated capability is injection of a complete, attacker-chosen expression into post-sanitization shadow root content; the resulting script execution and any confidentiality or integrity consequence depend on the downstream engine's evaluation context.
Proof of Concept
Preconditions:
- DOMPurify built from the affected source (dist/purify.js or an ESM/CJS bundle).
- A browser (or DOM implementation) with shadow DOM support.
- Application constructs a DOM node with an attached shadow root before sanitizing,
and later evaluates the shadow root's text content as a template.
Build a host element whose shadow root holds a template expression split across text nodes separated by disallowed elements, then sanitize in place with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES:
const host = document.createElement('div');
const root = host.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });
// Split "${alert(document.domain)}" so no single fragment matches a regex.
// <object> is not in the default ALLOWED_TAGS and is removed during sanitization,
// leaving the surrounding text-node siblings adjacent.
root.appendChild(document.createTextNode('$'));
root.appendChild(document.createElement('object'));
root.appendChild(document.createTextNode('{alert(document.domain)}'));
DOMPurify.sanitize(host, { IN_PLACE: true, SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true });
// After the disallowed element is removed, the fragments are adjacent and survive.
host.shadowRoot.normalize();
console.log(host.shadowRoot.textContent);
${alert(document.domain)}
A downstream template evaluator reading shadowRoot.textContent (for example new Function('return ' + content + '')() or any ${...}/{{...}} engine) then evaluates the fully formed expression.
Attack Chain
- Exposure: The application calls
DOMPurify.sanitize(node, cfg)(src/purify.ts:2854) withSAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: trueandIN_PLACE: true(or a shadow-awareRETURN_DOM), passing a DOM node that already carries an attached shadow root. - Control: The attacker controls the shadow root's text nodes and the disallowed separator elements between them; each fragment (
$,{alert(document.domain)}) is a valid, individually benign text node. - Path:
_sanitizeAttachedShadowRoots(src/purify.ts:2977) feeds the shadow root into_sanitizeShadowDOM(src/purify.ts:2710), which strips expressions per text node (src/purify.ts:2246) and removes the disallowed separator elements, leaving the fragments adjacent. - Guard: The post-walk safety net
_scrubTemplateExpressions(src/purify.ts:3131-3132) is the only pass that would catch the merged expression, but it never recurses into shadow roots (src/purify.ts:1717-1751recurses into<template>.contentonly). - Primitive: The adjacent fragments serialize as a single concatenated string on
shadowRoot.textContent/shadowRoot.innerHTML, reconstituting the complete expression. - Result: A downstream template engine evaluates the attacker-chosen expression, achieving script execution (or template injection) in the engine's context.
Bypass Evidence
The relevant protection is SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES, specifically the post-walk pass that defends against expressions that only form after adjacent text nodes merge. That defense was previously extended to <template>.content under CVE-2026-65900 (GHSA-gvmj-g25r-r7wr) by adding querySelectorAll('template') recursion at src/purify.ts:1743-1750. The strongest challenge is whether any code path performs the equivalent merge-and-rescrub inside shadow roots. Enumerating every call site of _scrubTemplateExpressions (src/purify.ts:1717, 1747, 3132, 3141) shows none receive a shadow root, and _sanitizeShadowDOM (src/purify.ts:2710) never calls _scrubTemplateExpressions or normalize(). The per-node strip cannot compensate: MUSTACHE_EXPR (src/regexp.ts:3) requires {{ or }}, TMPLIT_EXPR (src/regexp.ts:5) requires ${, and ERB_EXPR (src/regexp.ts:4) requires <% or %>, none of which appear in a single-character fragment. The CVE-2026-65900 regression tests exercise <template>.content only; no test covers shadow root content under SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES. The gap is therefore an unfixed case on a distinct remediation boundary (shadow roots) rather than a bypass of the delivered template-content fix.
Affected Versions
- Ecosystem:
npm - Package:
dompurify - Confirmed affected range:
>= 3.4.4, <= 3.4.16 - Latest release checked:
3.4.16(npm registry) - Fix status: not fixed
The lower bound 3.4.4 is the release that introduced both the attached-shadow-root sanitization pass and the _scrubTemplateExpressions safety net; releases 3.4.4 through 3.4.7 carry the safety net with no content-container recursion, and 3.4.8 onward add <template>.content recursion but still omit shadow root recursion. No published release and no current development revision contains a shadow-root fix.
Suggested Fix
Enforce the same post-walk normalize-and-rescrub invariant on attached shadow roots that already applies to <template>.content. After _sanitizeShadowDOM finishes walking a shadow root, run _scrubTemplateExpressions over that shadow root so adjacent text nodes created by element removal are merged and re-stripped; alternatively, have _scrubTemplateExpressions discover and recurse into attached shadow roots as it does for template content. The fix must cover nested shadow roots and shadow roots inside <template>.content, and it must handle all three expression dialects, since any disallowed element can serve as the separator that produces adjacent fragments.
Reported by zx (GitHub: @manus-pi).
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| dompurify | >= 3.4.4, <= 3.4.16 |
No fix yet |
| dompurify | >= 3.4.4, < 3.4.17 |
3.4.17 |
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 → 3.4.17
- npm
npm install dompurify@3.4.17- yarn
yarn add dompurify@3.4.17- pnpm
pnpm add dompurify@3.4.17
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 9.2
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- 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.
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-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-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: manus-pi, manus-use
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