Skip to content

Graby has stored XSS via iframe srcdoc Attribute in htmLawed Sanitization Config

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2026 in j0k3r/graby

Package

composer j0k3r/graby (Composer)

Affected versions

<= 2.5.0

Patched versions

2.5.1

Description

Summary

Graby's cleanupXss() function configures htmLawed with conflicting settings: safe=1 (which removes <iframe>) combined with 'elements' => '*+iframe-meta' (which re-enables <iframe>). htmLawed does not sanitize the srcdoc attribute, allowing injection of arbitrary JavaScript that executes when the content is rendered via |raw in templates.

Root Cause

src/Graby.php lines 1038-1048:

htmLawed($html, [
    'safe' => 1,                    // removes <iframe>
    'elements' => '*+iframe-meta',  // re-adds <iframe>, overrides safe=1
    'deny_attribute' => 'style',    // srcdoc is NOT denied
]);

The safe=1 and +iframe combination is a conflict: safe mode is designed to strip dangerous elements, but the elements override re-enables <iframe> without also blocking the dangerous srcdoc attribute.

Proof of Concept

Input to cleanupXss():

<iframe srcdoc="&lt;script&gt;alert(document.domain)&lt;/script&gt;"></iframe>

Output (unchanged — htmLawed passes it through):

<iframe srcdoc="&lt;script&gt;alert(document.domain)&lt;/script&gt;"></iframe>

When rendered via {{ content|raw }} in a template, srcdoc executes in an about:srcdoc frame with the same origin as the page. Confirmed via Puppeteer/Chromium headless: alert(document.domain) fires.

Validated on Wallabag (which uses Graby) via Docker: entry created via API with iframe-only content body triggers Readability failure → falls through to cleanupXss() path.

Impact

  • Stored XSS in any application rendering Graby-sanitized content via |raw
  • In Wallabag: affects both authenticated views and public share pages (unauthenticated)
  • No CSP headers in default Wallabag config — no secondary mitigation

Suggested Fix

Either remove +iframe from the elements config to keep iframes blocked:

'elements' => '*-iframe-meta',

Or explicitly deny the srcdoc attribute:

'deny_attribute' => 'style srcdoc',

Credit

Discovered by @tikket1, 2026-03-25. Redirected from wallabag/wallabag advisory by @j0k3r.

References

@j0k3r j0k3r published to j0k3r/graby Mar 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 31, 2026
Reviewed Mar 31, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-3h6j-9x8m-rg3g

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.