GHSA-vxr8-fq34-vvx9
ADVISORY - githubSummary
Impact
A DOMPurify instance that is reused across trust boundaries can stay bound to a previously supplied TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY even after clearConfig() is called. A later caller that requests RETURN_TRUSTED_TYPE receives a TrustedHTML object created by the old policy, not by a clean default configuration.
If the old policy is unsafe or controlled by a less-trusted integration, this turns a later "default" sanitize call into script execution at a Trusted Types sink. TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY: null on the later call also does not clear the retained policy.
dompurify-trusted-types-policy-survives-clearconfig-poc.js
Affected version
Tested against DOMPurify 3.4.8, repository commit 825e617753ac1169306a542d3174a77f717a0cf6.
Root cause
_parseConfig() overwrites trustedTypesPolicy when cfg.TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY is truthy, but the default/null path only initializes the internal policy when trustedTypesPolicy === undefined. Once a custom policy has been set, later default config parsing leaves it in place.
Relevant code:
src/purify.ts:786-812accepts and storescfg.TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY.src/purify.ts:813-832does not reset an existing policy when config has no policy or hasTRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY: null.src/purify.ts:2123-2125signs the final serialized HTML with the retained policy whenRETURN_TRUSTED_TYPEis true.src/purify.ts:2133-2136clearConfig()only clearsCONFIGandSET_CONFIG; it does not resettrustedTypesPolicyoremptyHTML.
Local PoC
Run from the DOMPurify checkout, or set DOMPURIFY_REPO:
node /home/dompurify-trusted-types-policy-survives-clearconfig-poc.js
Observed output:
{
"result": {
"baseline": "<b>baseline</b>",
"duringPolicy": "<img src=x onerror=alert(\"TT_POLICY_SURVIVED_CLEARCONFIG\")>",
"afterClearString": "<img src=\"x\">",
"afterClearTrustedType": "[object TrustedHTML]",
"afterClearTrusted": "<img src=x onerror=alert(\"TT_POLICY_SURVIVED_CLEARCONFIG\")>",
"afterNullTrusted": "<img src=x onerror=alert(\"TT_POLICY_SURVIVED_CLEARCONFIG\")>",
"mountedHTML": "<img src=\"x\" onerror=\"alert("TT_POLICY_SURVIVED_CLEARCONFIG")\">"
},
"dialogs": [
"TT_POLICY_SURVIVED_CLEARCONFIG"
]
}
The important part is the split behavior after cleanup:
purify.clearConfig(); purify.sanitize(...);returns a normal sanitized string (<img src="x">), because the later call is not asking for a Trusted Type.purify.clearConfig(); purify.sanitize(..., { RETURN_TRUSTED_TYPE: true });still uses the old policy and returns attacker-controlledTrustedHTML.- Passing
{ TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY: null, RETURN_TRUSTED_TYPE: true }also still returns attacker-controlledTrustedHTML.
Preconditions
This is a shared-instance state contamination issue. It matters when one DOMPurify instance is reused by multiple integrations, plugins, request handlers, or components with different trust levels, and a cleanup step relies on clearConfig() to restore safe defaults.
This is not a default string-input bypass. An attacker must be able to influence a prior TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY on the reused instance, or a less-trusted integration must have installed an unsafe policy.
Severity
impact is XSS at a Trusted Types sink in applications that reuse a DOMPurify instance across trust boundaries. Attack complexity is high because exploitation depends on prior policy injection or a less-trusted integration and a later RETURN_TRUSTED_TYPE sink.
Suggested fix
Make clearConfig() reset Trusted Types state as part of restoring defaults, or have _parseConfig() explicitly clear trustedTypesPolicy and emptyHTML when TRUSTED_TYPES_POLICY: null is supplied.
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Protection Mechanism Failure
GitHub
-
CVSS SCORE
2.1low| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dompurify | npm | - | - | <3.4.9 | 3.4.9 |
CVSS:4 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 successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
The attacker is unauthenticated 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 targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker's payload, or the user's interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability. Examples include: importing a file into a vulnerable system in a specific manner placing files into a specific directory prior to executing code submitting a specific string into a web application (e.g. reflected or self XSS) dismiss or accept prompts or security warnings prior to taking an action (e.g. opening/editing a file, connecting a device).
There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent System.
There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
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 to the Subsequent System.
There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Chainguard
CGA-wf82-9wrv-gjcg
-
minimos
MINI-4x2j-6w2p-rv54
-