CWE-346
Allowed-with-ReviewOrigin Validation Error
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
785 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-W937-FG2H-XHQ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-22 20:32 – Updated: 2026-05-13 13:30Summary
Versions of the locize client SDK (the browser module that wires up the locize InContext translation editor) prior to 4.0.21 register a window.addEventListener("message", …) handler that dispatches to registered internal handlers (editKey, commitKey, commitKeys, isLocizeEnabled, requestInitialize, …) without validating event.origin.
The pre-patch listener in src/api/postMessage.js gates dispatch on event.data.sender === "i18next-editor-frame" — that value sits inside the attacker-controlled message payload, not the browser-enforced origin. Any web page that could embed or be embedded by a locize-enabled host — an iframe on a third-party page, a window.open-ed victim, a parent frame reaching down — could send a crafted postMessage and trigger the internal handlers.
Impact
Depending on which handler the attacker invokes, distinct consequences follow. All of them share the same root cause: the handlers implicitly assumed the payload came from the real editor iframe.
-
Cross-origin DOM XSS via
editKey/commitKeys: the pre-patchhandleEditKeyassigned attacker-controlled payload values toitem.node.innerHTMLand toitem.node.setAttribute(attr, value). That allowed planting<script>,<img onerror>, oronclick/onload/onfocusevent handlers; and on attribute writes,href="javascript:…"/src="data:text/html,<script>…"/style="…"/ etc. -
api.source/api.originhijack viaisLocizeEnabled: the handler setapi.source = e.source; api.origin = e.origin— attacker-controlled values. All subsequentsendMessagecalls (which post translations, callbacks, etc., back towardapi.source) would go to the attacker window rather than the real editor, leaking translation content and any metadata the SDK forwards. -
CSS-injection / layout-escape via
requestPopupChanges:containerStyle.height/.widthwere interpolated intocalc()expressions andpopup.style.setProperty()without validation, allowing attackers to inject additional CSS declarations (semicolons,behavior:url()on legacy IE, CSS-exfil patterns) into the popup inline style.
Exploitation requires the attacker-owned page to share a window reference with the locize-enabled host: typical vectors are an iframe on an attacker-controlled page, a window.opener/window.open relationship, or a parent frame that can postMessage into an embedded locize host. The SDK intended model is that only the editor iframe at https://incontext.locize.app (or the configured staging/development origin) can reach these handlers.
Affected versions
All versions of locize prior to 4.0.21.
Patch
Fixed in 4.0.21. Two layers:
-
Primary — validate
event.originat the top ofwindow.addEventListener("message", …)insrc/api/postMessage.js. The expected origin is the configured iframe origin (getIframeUrl()), so custom environments continue to work. Messages from any other origin are silently dropped before any handler runs. -
Defence-in-depth —
handleEditKeynow rejects dangerous attribute-name writes (on*,style) andjavascript:/data:/vbscript:/file:URLs onhref/src/action/formaction/xlink:href;innerHTMLassignments are sanitised through a throwaway DOMParser document (stripping<script>,<iframe>,<object>,<embed>,<link>,<meta>,<base>,<style>plus event handlers and dangerous URL schemes). Legitimate translation formatting (<b>,<em>,<strong>,<a href="https://…">, etc.) passes through. -
CSS-injection —
handleRequestPopupChangesnow requirescontainerStyle.height/.widthto match a strict CSS length pattern; malformed values are dropped silently.
Workarounds
No workaround short of upgrading.
Credits
Discovered via an internal security audit of the locize ecosystem.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "locize"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.21"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41886"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-22T20:32:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-08T16:16:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nVersions of the `locize` client SDK (the browser module that wires up the locize InContext translation editor) prior to 4.0.21 register a `window.addEventListener(\"message\", \u2026)` handler that dispatches to registered internal handlers (`editKey`, `commitKey`, `commitKeys`, `isLocizeEnabled`, `requestInitialize`, \u2026) **without validating `event.origin`**.\n\nThe pre-patch listener in `src/api/postMessage.js` gates dispatch on `event.data.sender === \"i18next-editor-frame\"` \u2014 that value sits inside the attacker-controlled message payload, not the browser-enforced origin. Any web page that could embed or be embedded by a locize-enabled host \u2014 an iframe on a third-party page, a `window.open`-ed victim, a parent frame reaching down \u2014 could send a crafted `postMessage` and trigger the internal handlers.\n\n### Impact\n\nDepending on which handler the attacker invokes, distinct consequences follow. All of them share the same root cause: the handlers implicitly assumed the payload came from the real editor iframe.\n\n- **Cross-origin DOM XSS** via `editKey` / `commitKeys`: the pre-patch `handleEditKey` assigned attacker-controlled payload values to `item.node.innerHTML` and to `item.node.setAttribute(attr, value)`. That allowed planting `\u003cscript\u003e`, `\u003cimg onerror\u003e`, or `onclick`/`onload`/`onfocus` event handlers; and on attribute writes, `href=\"javascript:\u2026\"` / `src=\"data:text/html,\u003cscript\u003e\u2026\"` / `style=\"\u2026\"` / etc.\n\n- **`api.source` / `api.origin` hijack** via `isLocizeEnabled`: the handler set `api.source = e.source; api.origin = e.origin` \u2014 attacker-controlled values. All subsequent `sendMessage` calls (which post translations, callbacks, etc., back toward `api.source`) would go to the attacker window rather than the real editor, leaking translation content and any metadata the SDK forwards.\n\n- **CSS-injection / layout-escape** via `requestPopupChanges`: `containerStyle.height` / `.width` were interpolated into `calc()` expressions and `popup.style.setProperty()` without validation, allowing attackers to inject additional CSS declarations (semicolons, `behavior:url()` on legacy IE, CSS-exfil patterns) into the popup inline style.\n\nExploitation requires the attacker-owned page to share a window reference with the locize-enabled host: typical vectors are an `iframe` on an attacker-controlled page, a `window.opener`/`window.open` relationship, or a parent frame that can `postMessage` into an embedded locize host. The SDK intended model is that only the editor iframe at `https://incontext.locize.app` (or the configured staging/development origin) can reach these handlers.\n\n### Affected versions\n\nAll versions of `locize` prior to **4.0.21**.\n\n### Patch\n\nFixed in **4.0.21**. Two layers:\n\n1. **Primary** \u2014 validate `event.origin` at the top of `window.addEventListener(\"message\", \u2026)` in `src/api/postMessage.js`. The expected origin is the configured iframe origin (`getIframeUrl()`), so custom environments continue to work. Messages from any other origin are silently dropped before any handler runs.\n\n2. **Defence-in-depth** \u2014 `handleEditKey` now rejects dangerous attribute-name writes (`on*`, `style`) and `javascript:` / `data:` / `vbscript:` / `file:` URLs on `href` / `src` / `action` / `formaction` / `xlink:href`; `innerHTML` assignments are sanitised through a throwaway DOMParser document (stripping `\u003cscript\u003e`, `\u003ciframe\u003e`, `\u003cobject\u003e`, `\u003cembed\u003e`, `\u003clink\u003e`, `\u003cmeta\u003e`, `\u003cbase\u003e`, `\u003cstyle\u003e` plus event handlers and dangerous URL schemes). Legitimate translation formatting (`\u003cb\u003e`, `\u003cem\u003e`, `\u003cstrong\u003e`, `\u003ca href=\"https://\u2026\"\u003e`, etc.) passes through.\n\n3. **CSS-injection** \u2014 `handleRequestPopupChanges` now requires `containerStyle.height` / `.width` to match a strict CSS length pattern; malformed values are dropped silently.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNo workaround short of upgrading.\n\n### Credits\n\nDiscovered via an internal security audit of the locize ecosystem.",
"id": "GHSA-w937-fg2h-xhq2",
"modified": "2026-05-13T13:30:12Z",
"published": "2026-04-22T20:32:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/locize/locize/security/advisories/GHSA-w937-fg2h-xhq2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41886"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/locize/locize/commit/d006b75fadb8e8ab77b023e462850fc6e9170735"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/postMessage#security_concerns"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/locize/locize"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/locize/locize/releases/tag/v4.0.21"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "locize Client SDK: Cross-origin DOM XSS \u0026 Handler Hijack Through Missing e.origin Validation in InContext Editor "
}
GHSA-W973-2QCC-P78X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-09-11 21:19 – Updated: 2021-09-28 16:56Versions of converse.js prior to 1.0.7 for 1.x or 2.0.5 for 2.x are vulnerable to User Impersonation. The package provides an incorrect implementation of XEP-0280: Message Carbons that allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
If you're using converse.js 1.x, upgrade to 1.0.7 or later.
If you're using converse.js 2.x, upgrade to 2.0.5 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "converse.js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "converse.js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-5858"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-08-31T18:42:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Versions of `converse.js` prior to 1.0.7 for 1.x or 2.0.5 for 2.x are vulnerable to User Impersonation. The package provides an incorrect implementation of [XEP-0280: Message Carbons](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html) that allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application\u0027s display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nIf you\u0027re using `converse.js` 1.x, upgrade to 1.0.7 or later.\nIf you\u0027re using `converse.js` 2.x, upgrade to 2.0.5 or later.",
"id": "GHSA-w973-2qcc-p78x",
"modified": "2021-09-28T16:56:35Z",
"published": "2020-09-11T21:19:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-5858"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jcbrand/converse.js/commit/42f249cabbbf5c026398e6d3b350f6f9536ea572"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jcbrand/converse.js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rt-solutions.de/en/2017/02/CVE-2017-5589_xmpp_carbons"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rt-solutions.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CVE-2017-5589_xmpp_carbons.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-CONVERSEJS-449664"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/02/09/29"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/02/09/29"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96183"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "User Impersonation in converse.js"
}
GHSA-W992-VGRP-856G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-05 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-14 00:00AVEVA System Platform versions 2017 through 2020 R2 P01 does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-32985"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-04T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "AVEVA System Platform versions 2017 through 2020 R2 P01 does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.",
"id": "GHSA-w992-vgrp-856g",
"modified": "2022-04-14T00:00:42Z",
"published": "2022-04-05T00:00:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-32985"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.aveva.com/content/dam/aveva/documents/support/cyber-security-updates/SecurityBulletin_AVEVA-2021-002.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-21-180-05"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WCCX-FXF3-QG7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-05 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-05 21:31Inappropriate implementation in Passwords in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-10937"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-04T23:16:56Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Inappropriate implementation in Passwords in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)",
"id": "GHSA-wccx-fxf3-qg7r",
"modified": "2026-06-05T21:31:56Z",
"published": "2026-06-05T00:31:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10937"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/502651056"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WG2H-WC56-7JCC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-19 15:31 – Updated: 2026-05-19 18:32Same-origin policy bypass in the Networking: JAR component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 151.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8971"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-19T14:16:53Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Same-origin policy bypass in the Networking: JAR component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 151.",
"id": "GHSA-wg2h-wc56-7jcc",
"modified": "2026-05-19T18:32:10Z",
"published": "2026-05-19T15:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8971"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2032604"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-46"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2026-50"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WRR5-XWCP-MRF2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-15 18:30 – Updated: 2024-11-20 15:30lilishop <=4.2.4 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control, which can allow attackers to obtain coupons beyond the quantity limit by capturing and sending the data packets for coupon collection in high concurrency.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-50654"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-15T17:15:20Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "lilishop \u003c=4.2.4 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control, which can allow attackers to obtain coupons beyond the quantity limit by capturing and sending the data packets for coupon collection in high concurrency.",
"id": "GHSA-wrr5-xwcp-mrf2",
"modified": "2024-11-20T15:30:50Z",
"published": "2024-11-15T18:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50654"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Yllxx03/CVE/blob/main/lilishop/CouponLogicVulnerability.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Yllxx03/CVE/tree/main/CVE-2024-50654"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WW75-9MPC-WVR2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 00:34 – Updated: 2026-07-01 18:31Inappropriate implementation in NFC in Google Chrome on Android prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-13887"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-30T23:17:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Inappropriate implementation in NFC in Google Chrome on Android prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)",
"id": "GHSA-ww75-9mpc-wvr2",
"modified": "2026-07-01T18:31:31Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T00:34:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-13887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2026/06/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_0175352312.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/500508524"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WWFF-QQFJ-CV2G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-23 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:53Origin Validation Error vulnerability in Zscaler Client Connector on Linux allows Inclusion of Code in Existing Process. This issue affects Zscaler Client Connector for Linux: before 1.3.1.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-28795"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-23T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Origin Validation Error vulnerability in Zscaler Client Connector on Linux allows Inclusion of Code in Existing Process. This issue affects Zscaler Client Connector for Linux: before 1.3.1.6.\n\n\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-wwff-qqfj-cv2g",
"modified": "2024-04-04T08:53:03Z",
"published": "2023-10-23T15:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-28795"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://help.zscaler.com/client-connector/client-connector-app-release-summary-2022?applicable_category=Linux\u0026applicable_version=1.3.1\u0026deployment_date=2022-09-19"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WWPQ-HGFX-QQ8X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-30 18:15 – Updated: 2024-02-08 21:30The default configuration for the domain name resolver for Microsoft Windows 98, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP sets the QueryIpMatching parameter to 0, which causes Windows to accept DNS updates from hosts that it did not query, which allows remote attackers to poison the DNS cache.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2000-1218"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2000-04-14T04:00:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The default configuration for the domain name resolver for Microsoft Windows 98, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP sets the QueryIpMatching parameter to 0, which causes Windows to accept DNS updates from hosts that it did not query, which allows remote attackers to poison the DNS cache.",
"id": "GHSA-wwpq-hgfx-qq8x",
"modified": "2024-02-08T21:30:28Z",
"published": "2022-04-30T18:15:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2000-1218"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/4280"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/458659"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WWR3-9QHX-Q62F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:32 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:32A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in iCloud for Windows 7.17, iTunes 12.10.4 for Windows, iCloud for Windows 10.9.2, tvOS 13.3.1, Safari 13.0.5, iOS 13.3.1 and iPadOS 13.3.1. A DOM object context may not have had a unique security origin.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-3864"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-10-27T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in iCloud for Windows 7.17, iTunes 12.10.4 for Windows, iCloud for Windows 10.9.2, tvOS 13.3.1, Safari 13.0.5, iOS 13.3.1 and iPadOS 13.3.1. A DOM object context may not have had a unique security origin.",
"id": "GHSA-wwr3-9qhx-q62f",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:32:40Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:32:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-3864"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210918"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210922"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210923"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210947"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210948"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-141: Cache Poisoning
An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.
CAPEC-142: DNS Cache Poisoning
A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.
CAPEC-160: Exploit Script-Based APIs
Some APIs support scripting instructions as arguments. Methods that take scripted instructions (or references to scripted instructions) can be very flexible and powerful. However, if an attacker can specify the script that serves as input to these methods they can gain access to a great deal of functionality. For example, HTML pages support <script> tags that allow scripting languages to be embedded in the page and then interpreted by the receiving web browser. If the content provider is malicious, these scripts can compromise the client application. Some applications may even execute the scripts under their own identity (rather than the identity of the user providing the script) which can allow attackers to perform activities that would otherwise be denied to them.
CAPEC-21: Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers
An adversary guesses, obtains, or "rides" a trusted identifier (e.g. session ID, resource ID, cookie, etc.) to perform authorized actions under the guise of an authenticated user or service.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
CAPEC-510: SaaS User Request Forgery
An adversary, through a previously installed malicious application, performs malicious actions against a third-party Software as a Service (SaaS) application (also known as a cloud based application) by leveraging the persistent and implicit trust placed on a trusted user's session. This attack is executed after a trusted user is authenticated into a cloud service, "piggy-backing" on the authenticated session, and exploiting the fact that the cloud service believes it is only interacting with the trusted user. If successful, the actions embedded in the malicious application will be processed and accepted by the targeted SaaS application and executed at the trusted user's privilege level.
CAPEC-59: Session Credential Falsification through Prediction
This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
CAPEC-60: Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
CAPEC-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-89: Pharming
A pharming attack occurs when the victim is fooled into entering sensitive data into supposedly trusted locations, such as an online bank site or a trading platform. An attacker can impersonate these supposedly trusted sites and have the victim be directed to their site rather than the originally intended one. Pharming does not require script injection or clicking on malicious links for the attack to succeed.