VulnerabilityPublished 20 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-112951: apostrophecms apostrophe · Cross-site Scripting

Affects apostrophecms apostropheSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 4.34.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.34.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: 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 impacted component.
Integrity: Low: 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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade apostrophe and apostrophecms/apostrophe to 4.34.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
apostrophecmsapostrophe	Affected <4.34.0	Fixed in 4.34.0
GitHubapostrophecms/apostrophe`pkg:github/apostrophecms/apostrophe`Other threats	Affected <4.34.0	Fixed in 4.34.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade ApostropheCMS to version 4.34.0 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. No other mitigation is specified or required as the fix addresses the root cause in input validation.

Description

### Summary The color field accepts any string that *begins* with a valid `rgb()` / `hsl()` color, because `TinyColor.isValid` does not anchor its match at the end of the string. An authenticated user with edit rights can store arbitrary HTML after a valid color prefix. When the stored value is rendered , the payload executes, resulting in stored XSS. ### Details Server-side validation of the color field relies on TinyColor: ```js const { TinyColor } = require('@ctrl/tinycolor'); if (!new TinyColor(value).isValid) throw self.apos.error('invalid'); ``` TinyColor's `rgb`/`hsl` matchers are not anchored at the end of the string, while hex matchers are. Tested with @ctrl/tinycolor | Input | `isValid` | |---|---| | `rgb(1,2,3)<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>` | `true` | | `rgb(1,2,3)</textarea><script>alert(1)</script>` | `true` | | `hsl(0,100%,50%);--x:1}</style><script>alert(1)</script>` | `true` | | `#ff0000<img src=x onerror=alert(1)>` | `false` | The value is saved to MongoDB unchanged (not normalized to hex8). ### Relation to GHSA-97v6-998m-fp4g GHSA-97v6 addressed CSS custom property injection escaping a `<style>` context. The root cause (validation that accepts trailing content after a valid color) still exists in <= 4.32.2, so [FILL IN: either "the style-tag sink remains exploitable via `</style>`" OR "a separate HTML sink at X is exploitable"]. Fixing the validation (requiring the full string to be a color, or storing only TinyColor's normalized output) would close both. ### Impact Any user with edit permission can plant persistent JavaScript that runs in the browser of visitors and administrators viewing the affected page, enabling session hijacking and actions as an admin. ### Suggested fix Reject values unless the entire string is a valid color, e.g. normalize on save: ```js const c = new TinyColor(value); if (!c.isValid) throw self.apos.error('invalid'); value = c.toHex8String(); // store only normalized output ```

Impact

An authenticated user with edit rights can inject and store arbitrary HTML content via the color field, leading to stored cross-site scripting. This can result in the execution of malicious scripts in the context of users viewing the affected content, potentially compromising confidentiality and integrity of user sessions or data. The CVSS score is 5.4 (medium severity), indicating a moderate impact with low attack complexity but requiring user interaction and privileges.

Summary

ApostropheCMS, an open-source Node.js content management system, has a stored XSS vulnerability (CWE-79) in versions before 4.34.0. The color field validation uses TinyColor but does not enforce that the entire input matches a valid color format, permitting trailing content after a valid rgb() or hsl() prefix. An authenticated user with edit permissions can exploit this by injecting arbitrary HTML, which executes when the stored value is rendered. The issue is resolved in version 4.34.0.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Oct 2026, 16:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats