VulnerabilityPublished 13 Aug 2026Updated 18 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-73650: svg svgo · Cross-site Scripting

Affects svg svgoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High · fixed in 4.0.2 : patch svg svgo soon.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.0.2, 3.3.4, 2.8.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 13 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 svg svgo to 4.0.2, 3.3.4 or 2.8.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
svgsvgo	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.0.2	Fixed in 4.0.2
svgsvgo	Affected >=3.0.0 <3.3.4	Fixed in 3.3.4
svgsvgo	Affected >=1.0.0 <2.8.3	Fixed in 2.8.3
npmsvgo`pkg:npm/svgo`Other threats	Affected <2.8.3 >=2.8.3 <3.3.4 >=3.3.4 <4.0.2	Fixed in 2.8.3 3.3.4 4.0.2

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in svgo versions 2.8.3, 3.3.4, and 4.0.2. Users and developers should upgrade to one of these versions or later to remediate this vulnerability. Patch status is confirmed by the version information specifying the fixed versions. No additional mitigation steps are indicated in the advisory.

Description

SVGO, short for SVG Optimizer, is a Node.js library and command-line application for optimizing SVG files. From version 1.0.0 until versions 2.8.3, 3.3.4, and 4.0.2, the removeScripts plugin, named removeScriptElement in versions 1 through 3, can leave executable content in optimized SVGs because it does not remove namespaced or prefixed script elements such as <svg:script> and, in versions 3 and 4, matches JavaScript URIs case sensitively. Applications that process untrusted SVG input with this plugin enabled and serve the result can allow scripts to execute when another user opens the SVG, exposing local storage or cookies. This issue is fixed in versions 2.8.3, 3.3.4, and 4.0.2.

Impact

Exploitation of this vulnerability can lead to cross-site scripting attacks, allowing an attacker to execute scripts in the context of users viewing the optimized SVG files. This can result in exposure of sensitive information such as local storage data or cookies. The CVSS score of 8.2 indicates a high severity with network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, user interaction required, and high confidentiality impact.

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).
CWE-184Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A03:2021: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
Do not rely exclusively on detecting disallowed inputs. There are too many variants to encode a character, especially when different environments are used, so there is a high likelihood of missing some variants. Only use detection of disallowed inputs as a mechanism for detecting suspicious activity.
Attack patterns
Double Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Flash Injection (opens in a new tab)
Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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 21 Aug 2026, 13:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79, CWE-184

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats