GHSA-458j-xx4x-4375
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Summary
Improper handling of JSX attribute names in hono/jsx allows malformed attribute keys to corrupt the generated HTML output.
When untrusted input is used as attribute keys during server-side rendering, specially crafted keys can break out of attribute or tag boundaries and inject unintended HTML.
Details
When rendering JSX elements to HTML strings, attribute values are escaped, but attribute names (keys) were previously inserted into the output without validation.
If an attribute name contains characters such as ", >, or whitespace, it can alter the structure of the generated HTML.
For example, malformed attribute names can:
- Break out of the current attribute and introduce unintended additional attributes
- Break out of the current HTML tag and inject new elements into the output
This issue arises when untrusted input (such as query parameters or form data) is used as JSX attribute keys during server-side rendering.
Impact
An attacker who can control attribute keys used in JSX rendering may inject unintended attributes or HTML elements into the generated output.
This may lead to:
- Injection of unexpected HTML attributes
- Corruption of the HTML structure
- Potential cross-site scripting (XSS) if combined with unsafe usage patterns
This issue affects applications that pass untrusted input as JSX attribute keys during server-side rendering.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
GitHub
2.8
CVSS SCORE
4.3medium| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hono | npm | - | - | <4.12.14 | 4.12.14 |
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 no loss of confidentiality.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.