Skip to content

GHSA-vccv-cmxp-4j9h CVE-2026-53606

sanitize-html has incomplete URI scheme validation in that allows javascript: URIs through action, formaction, data, poster, and background attributes

Medium npm
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.21%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 11.43% 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
2.17.5
Upgrade sanitize-html to this version or later

Description

Summary

sanitize-html uses allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes (default: ['href', 'src', 'cite']) to gate the naughtyHref() function that blocks dangerous URI schemes like javascript: and vbscript:. The HTML specification defines 10+ attributes that accept URIs (action, formaction, data, poster, background, ping, xlink:href, dynsrc, lowsrc), but none of these are included in the default gate list. When a developer allows any of these attributes in their configuration, javascript: URIs pass through completely unmodified, enabling XSS.

The library has zero awareness of these URI-bearing attributes — none appear anywhere in the 854-line source file (verified by grep). No warning mechanism exists, and the README provides no security guidance about expanding allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes when allowing form or media attributes.

Severity

Exploitation requires non-default configuration: the developer must explicitly allow a non-default tag (e.g., form) AND a non-default attribute (e.g., action). Default configuration is NOT vulnerable. However, this is a common configuration pattern for CMS platforms, form builders, and rich content editors.

Affected Versions

All versions of sanitize-html from v1.18.0 (which introduced allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes) through at least v2.17.2. The default list has been ['href', 'src', 'cite'] since introduction and has never been expanded.

Root Cause

File: index.js:329 (sanitize-html 2.10.0, confirmed same in 2.17.x)

// Line 329 — The gate that controls scheme validation
if (options.allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes.indexOf(a) >= 0) {
    if (naughtyHref(name, value)) {
        delete frame.attribs[a];
        return;
    }
}

Default list at line 829:

allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes: ['href', 'src', 'cite'],

The naughtyHref() function (lines 627-667) correctly blocks javascript:, vbscript:, and other dangerous schemes. However, it has exactly 2 call sites in the entire codebase (lines 330 and 395), both inside the indexOf gate. There is no ungated path.

When attribute name is action, formaction, data, poster, background, etc.:

  • indexOf('action') returns -1
  • The if block is skipped entirely
  • naughtyHref() is never called
  • javascript:alert(1) passes through unmodified

The escapeHtml() function at line 464 provides no defense — it only encodes & < > " characters, which are not present in javascript:alert(1).

Data Flow:

Attacker input: <form action="javascript:alert(document.cookie)">
1. htmlparser2 parses → tag='form', attribs={action:'javascript:alert(document.cookie)'}
2. index.js:298 → allowedAttributes check: 'action' in developer config → PASS
3. index.js:329 → ['href','src','cite'].indexOf('action') → -1 → SKIP naughtyHref()
4. index.js:464 → escapeHtml('javascript:alert(document.cookie)') → unchanged
5. OUTPUT: <form action="javascript:alert(document.cookie)">

Steps to Reproduce

const sanitize = require('sanitize-html');

// ===== VECTOR 1: form action (100% reliable, all modern browsers) =====
const v1 = sanitize(
    '<form action="javascript:alert(document.cookie)"><button>Submit</button></form>',
    {
        allowedTags: ['form', 'button'],
        allowedAttributes: { form: ['action'] }
    }
);
console.log('V1 (action):', v1);
// OUTPUT: <form action="javascript:alert(document.cookie)"><button>Submit</button></form>
// XSS triggers when user submits the form

// ===== VECTOR 2: button formaction (100% reliable) =====
const v2 = sanitize(
    '<button formaction="javascript:alert(1)">Click</button>',
    {
        allowedTags: ['button'],
        allowedAttributes: { button: ['formaction'] }
    }
);
console.log('V2 (formaction):', v2);
// OUTPUT: <button formaction="javascript:alert(1)">Click</button>

// ===== VECTOR 3: object data =====
const v3 = sanitize(
    '<object data="javascript:alert(1)"></object>',
    {
        allowedTags: ['object'],
        allowedAttributes: { object: ['data'] }
    }
);
console.log('V3 (data):', v3);
// OUTPUT: <object data="javascript:alert(1)"></object>

// ===== CONTROL: href IS scheme-checked (expected behavior) =====
const ctrl = sanitize(
    '<a href="javascript:alert(1)">click</a>',
    {
        allowedTags: ['a'],
        allowedAttributes: { a: ['href'] }
    }
);
console.log('Control (href):', ctrl);
// OUTPUT: <a>click</a>   ← href correctly stripped by naughtyHref()

Observed behavior: javascript: preserved on action/formaction/data but correctly stripped on href.

Expected behavior: javascript: should be stripped on ALL URI-bearing attributes, or at minimum, the library should warn developers when they allow URI-bearing attributes not covered by scheme validation.

Impact

An attacker can achieve XSS in applications that use sanitize-html with non-default configurations allowing URI-bearing attributes:

  • <form action="javascript:..."> — XSS on form submission (all modern browsers)
  • <button formaction="javascript:..."> — per-button XSS override (all modern browsers)
  • <object data="javascript:..."> — object load XSS (Chrome, Firefox)
  • <video poster="javascript:..."> — limited browser support but spec-valid

Common vulnerable configurations:

  • CMS platforms allowing form elements for user-generated content
  • Form builder applications
  • Rich text editors with extended tag allowlists
  • Email template editors allowing media/embed tags

Mitigating factors:

  • Default configuration is NOT vulnerable
  • Requires double opt-in: non-default tag + non-default attribute
  • CSP form-action directive mitigates form-based vectors
  • Developers CAN manually add attributes to allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes

Remediation

Option 1 (Recommended): Expand the default allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes list:

// index.js line 829, change from:
allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes: ['href', 'src', 'cite'],

// to:
allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes: [
    'href', 'src', 'cite', 'action', 'formaction',
    'data', 'poster', 'background', 'ping',
    'xlink:href', 'dynsrc', 'lowsrc'
],

Option 2: Apply naughtyHref() to ALL attributes by default (invert the gate logic).

Option 3: Add a runtime warning when developers allow URI-bearing attributes not in allowedSchemesAppliedToAttributes (analogous to vulnerableTags warning for script/style at lines 124-129).

Reporter

Kevin Lee (Changseon Lee) OPCIA Corp. / PeanutAI Inc. Seoul, South Korea GitHub: crattack

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
sanitize-html
>= 1.18.0, < 2.17.5
2.17.5

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.

sanitize-html npm → 2.17.5

npm
npm install sanitize-html@2.17.5
yarn
yarn add sanitize-html@2.17.5
pnpm
pnpm add sanitize-html@2.17.5

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-cv27-6wvh-8x7j
ApostropheCMS: Incomplete CVE-2026-53606: `meta http-equiv=refresh` `content` still ships `javascript:` / `data:` URLs
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-374f-7chj-9948
ApostropheCMS sanitize-html: SMIL animation namespace-prefix bypass allows javascript: URI injection (XSS)
Low Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-x3q4-9hxx-gx8m
ApostropheCMS sanitize-html: nonTextTags discard region ends early on an implied close, letting <noscript> content render
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-c9rx-x947-fp3h
ApostropheCMS sanitize-html: unbounded recursion when re-sanitizing the fallback of a discarded iframe (stack overflow, nestingLimit not enforced)
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-g8qq-57p8-ggw5
ApostropheCMS: Stored XSS via SVG SMIL URI-list scheme-policy bypass
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-jxwj-j7wr-gfrw
ApostropheCMS: Mutation-XSS / allowedTags bypass via literal `</textarea/>` solidus close
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-rpr9-rxv7-x643
Apostrophe has default XSS via `xmp` raw-text passthrough in `sanitize-html`
Critical Also affects sanitize-html
GHSA-9mrh-v2v3-xpfm
sanitize-html allowedTags Bypass via Entity-Decoded Text in nonTextTags Elements
Medium Also affects sanitize-html
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