An XSS vulnerability was discovered in python-lxml's clean module versions before 4.6.3. When disabling the safe_attrs_only and forms argum…
An XSS vulnerability was discovered in python-lxml's clean module versions before 4.6.3. When disabling the safe_attrs_only and forms arguments, the Cleaner class does not remove the formaction attribute allowing for JS to bypass the sanitizer. A remote attacker could exploit this flaw to run arbitrary JS code on users who interact with incorrectly sanitized HTML. This issue is patched in lxml 4.6.3.
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html →Open in CWE collection →An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/63.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/85.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/209.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/588.html →Open in CAPEC collection →This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/591.html →Open in CAPEC collection →An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/592.html →Open in CAPEC collection →| Product | Vendor | Status |
|---|---|---|
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| lxml | Tracked | |
| python-lxml | Tracked | |
| python27 | Tracked | |
| python38 | Tracked | |
| python38-devel | Tracked | |
| python39 | Tracked | |
| python39-devel | Tracked | |
| rh-python38-babel | Tracked | |
| rh-python38-babel | Tracked | |
| rh-python38-python | Tracked | |
| rh-python38-python | Tracked |