Skip to content

CraftCMS vulnerable to reflective XSS via incomplete return URL sanitization

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 9, 2026 in craftcms/cms • Updated Mar 11, 2026

Package

composer craftcms/cms (Composer)

Affected versions

>= 4.15.3, <= 4.17.2
>= 5.7.5, <= 5.9.6

Patched versions

4.17.3
5.9.7

Description

Summary

The fix for CVE-2025-35939 in craftcms/cms introduced a strip_tags() call in src/web/User.php to sanitize return URLs before they are stored in the session. However, strip_tags() only removes HTML tags (angle brackets) -- it does not inspect or filter URL schemes. Payloads like javascript:alert(document.cookie) contain no HTML tags and pass through strip_tags() completely unmodified, enabling reflected XSS when the return URL is rendered in an href attribute.

Details

The patched code in is:

public function setReturnUrl($url): void
{
    parent::setReturnUrl(strip_tags($url));
}

strip_tags() removes HTML tags (e.g., <script>, <img>) from a string, but it is not a URL sanitizer. When the sanitized return URL is subsequently rendered in an href attribute context (e.g., <a href="{{ returnUrl }}">), the following dangerous payloads survive strip_tags() completely unmodified:

  1. javascript: protocol URLs -- javascript:alert(document.cookie) contains no HTML tags, so strip_tags() returns it verbatim. When placed in an href, clicking the link executes the JavaScript.

  2. data: URIs -- data:text/html;base64,PHNjcmlwdD5hbGVydCgxKTwvc2NyaXB0Pg== uses Base64 encoding and contains no tags at all, bypassing strip_tags() entirely.

  3. Protocol-relative URLs -- //evil.com/steal contains no tags and is passed through unchanged. When rendered as an href, the browser resolves it relative to the current page’s protocol, redirecting the user to an attacker-controlled domain.

The core issue is that strip_tags() operates on HTML syntax (angle brackets) while the threat model here requires URL scheme validation. These are fundamentally different security concerns.

Impact

Reflected XSS via crafted return URL. An attacker constructs a malicious link such as https://target.example.com/craft/?returnUrl=javascript:alert(document.cookie) and sends it to a victim. The attack flow is:

  1. Victim clicks the link, visiting the Craft CMS site.
  2. The application calls setReturnUrl() with the attacker-controlled value.
  3. strip_tags() processes the URL but finds no HTML tags -- it passes through unchanged.
  4. The URL is stored in the session and later rendered in an href attribute (e.g., a "Return" or "Continue" link).
  5. When the victim clicks that link, javascript:alert(document.cookie) executes in the context of the Craft CMS origin.

This enables:

  • Session hijacking via cookie theft (document.cookie)
  • Data exfiltration via fetch() to an attacker-controlled server
  • Phishing by redirecting to a lookalike domain (protocol-relative URL)
  • CSRF by performing actions on behalf of the authenticated user

References

@angrybrad angrybrad published to craftcms/cms Mar 9, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 11, 2026
Reviewed Mar 11, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 11, 2026
Last updated Mar 11, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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 None
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:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(9th percentile)

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.

Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-31859

GHSA ID

GHSA-fvwq-45qv-xvhv

Source code

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