Skip to content

Tiptap: mergeAttributes() turns an own __proto__ key into inherited executable DOM attributes

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 26, 2026 in ueberdosis/tiptap • Updated Sep 2, 2026

Package

npm @tiptap/core (npm)

Affected versions

>= 2.0.0-alpha.0, < 3.30.4

Patched versions

3.30.4

Description

Summary

@tiptap/core's public mergeAttributes() helper uses ordinary bracket assignment on keys returned by Object.entries(). An own __proto__ key from JSON therefore invokes the legacy prototype setter on the fresh merged object. The function returns an object whose prototype is attacker-controlled, while Object.keys() and ordinary own-property checks show no attacker attributes.

When that result is used as a ProseMirror DOMOutputSpec attribute object, prosemirror-model's DOMSerializer.renderSpec() enumerates it with for...in and applies inherited values with setAttribute(). In a browser proof, inherited src and onerror values were copied to an <img> and the error handler executed once. This is per-object prototype manipulation; the proof does not modify global Object.prototype.

Root cause

The affected loop is conceptually:

const mergedAttributes = { ...items }
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(item)) {
  const exists = mergedAttributes[key]
  // ...
  mergedAttributes[key] = value
}

Object.entries(JSON.parse('{"__proto__": {...}}')) includes __proto__. Reading mergedAttributes['__proto__'] resolves the inherited Object.prototype; assigning to the same key invokes Object.prototype.__proto__'s setter and replaces mergedAttributes' prototype.

Browser reproduction

The following shape was tested with exact @tiptap/core 3.29.2 and prosemirror-model 1.25.11:

const input = JSON.parse(`{
  "__proto__": {
    "data-inherited-canary": "present",
    "src": "x-invalid://canary",
    "onerror": "globalThis.__tiptapXss += 1"
  }
}`)

const attrs = mergeAttributes(input)
// Object.keys(attrs) === []
// Object.getPrototypeOf(attrs) === input.__proto__

const schema = new Schema({
  nodes: {
    doc: { content: 'image' },
    image: { toDOM: () => ['img', attrs] },
    text: {},
  },
})
const doc = schema.node('doc', null, [schema.node('image')])
const fragment = DOMSerializer.fromSchema(schema).serializeFragment(doc.content)
document.body.append(fragment)

Chromium produced an image with data-inherited-canary, src, and onerror; the handler executed exactly once. Object.prototype remained clean.

Impact and preconditions

Applications that merge untrusted imported document, plugin, CMS, API, tenant, or AI-derived attribute objects can receive a prototype-manipulated result. Consumers that enumerate inherited keys, including ProseMirror's DOM serializer, can turn the hidden properties into DOM attributes and execute JavaScript in the application's origin. Own-key validation, object spread, JSON serialization, and logging can miss the inherited values. Other component consumers can read inherited authorization or configuration fields.

Tiptap's standard fixed ProseMirror schemas discard unknown document attributes, so arbitrary Tiptap JSON is not automatically exploitable in every application. A vulnerable application needs an untrusted object boundary into mergeAttributes() or a dynamic/custom extension or schema that preserves the relevant attribute object.

Affected versions

The unsafe assignment was introduced in commit ecadf7ea0a7f8f39a8496a60edf0ac8f379e6eb3 and is present in the first package tag @tiptap/core@2.0.0-alpha.0, v2.0.0, v2.27.1, v3.0.0, and current v3.29.2 source. No fixed release was found.

Recommended remediation

Reject __proto__ before reading or assigning the key, or define copied keys as own data properties without invoking legacy setters. A minimal hardening is to skip key === '__proto__'. Add regression tests using an own JSON-origin __proto__ key and assert that the result keeps Object.prototype as its prototype, exposes no inherited attacker keys, and cannot create an event-handler attribute through DOMSerializer.

This was found during authorized dependency review and is being reported privately. No public zero-day issue has been opened.

References

@bdbch bdbch published to ueberdosis/tiptap Aug 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 2, 2026
Reviewed Sep 2, 2026
Last updated Sep 2, 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 Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
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:H/SI:H/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.

Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution')

The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-cp6q-959q-f8rh

Source code

Credits

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