Skip to content

xmldom: requireWellFormed element/attribute name validation is bypassable via an embedded line terminator

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 21, 2026 in xmldom/xmldom • Updated Sep 8, 2026

Package

npm @xmldom/xmldom (npm)

Affected versions

= 0.9.11

Patched versions

0.9.12

Description

Summary

An embedded line terminator bypasses the requireWellFormed serializer check for element and
attribute names. The check was added to fix GHSA-w2rr-34g9-rvrj and GHSA-4w3w-2rp5-g8jm; a name whose
first line is well-formed slips past it and is serialized verbatim, so the characters after the line
terminator break out of the start/end tag or attribute. Callers who enabled requireWellFormed
specifically to neutralize those name-injection issues remain exposed.

Details

xmldom builds every grammar production through a shared regexp builder that compiles with the m
flag. The anchored full-string matcher used for element and attribute names, QName_exact = reg('^', QName, '$'), therefore inherits m. When it is applied as QName_exact.test(name) against
an already-assembled node name, the m flag makes $ match at an interior line terminator, so the
matcher accepts any value in which at least one line is a valid QName; the other lines are never
constrained. A payload whose first line is a valid QName, followed by a line terminator and breakout
markup, is what yields a working injection.

The serializer emits the accepted name verbatim into element start/end tags and attribute names, so
the bytes after the line terminator break out of the intended syntactic position. The check is
reached whenever a caller serializes, with requireWellFormed: true, a node whose name was set
through programmatic DOM construction (createElement, createElementNS, createAttribute,
createAttributeNS) with attacker-influenced input.

Root Cause

  1. A shared regexp builder compiles anchored productions with the m flag.
  2. ^…$ under m are line anchors, not string anchors.
  3. A full-string validator built on such a production (.test()) accepts any string with one
    conforming line, so a line terminator followed by breakout markup passes.

The triggering line terminators are the ECMAScript LineTerminator set: U+000A, U+000D, U+2028, U+2029.

Proof of Concept

const { DOMImplementation, XMLSerializer } = require('@xmldom/xmldom');

// Element name carrying an embedded line terminator + breakout markup:
const doc = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'root', null);
const el = doc.createElement('a\n><script>alert(1)</script');
doc.documentElement.appendChild(el);

// Caller opted into well-formed serialization, expecting invalid names to be rejected:
console.log(new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true }));
// Observed on the affected version: NO throw; the output contains the injected `><script>…`
// breakout, because the name's first line ("a") satisfies the m-anchored QName check.
// Expected: InvalidStateError (the name is not a valid XML QName).

// Control — a single-line invalid name IS correctly rejected, proving the check is active and
// that only the line terminator defeats it:
const ctrl = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'root', null);
ctrl.documentElement.appendChild(ctrl.createElement('a b'));
new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(ctrl, { requireWellFormed: true });
// => throws InvalidStateError: The element name "a b" is not a valid XML QName

Impact

  • Bypass of a previously shipped security mitigation. Applications that adopted
    requireWellFormed: true specifically to neutralize GHSA-w2rr-34g9-rvrj / GHSA-4w3w-2rp5-g8jm
    remain exposed to element/attribute name injection.
  • XML / markup structure injection, and, where the serialized output is placed into an HTML
    context, downstream XSS.

Fix Applied

The anchored XML Name/QName validators used by the requireWellFormed serializer no
longer treat interior line terminators as satisfying the anchors, so a name is validated against the
whole string. A name containing a line terminator is rejected with InvalidStateError, closing the
bypass for element and attribute names. The default serialization path is unchanged.

⚠ Opt-in required. Protection is not automatic. Existing serialization calls remain
vulnerable unless { requireWellFormed: true } is explicitly passed. Applications that
serialize untrusted DOM content should audit all serializeToString() call sites and add it.

Proof of Concept - fixed path

const { DOMImplementation, XMLSerializer } = require('@xmldom/xmldom');
const doc = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'root', null);
const el = doc.createElement('a\n><script>alert(1)</script');
doc.documentElement.appendChild(el);

// Default path (require-well-formed off) — unchanged, still emits the name verbatim,
// so the `><script>…` bytes break out of the start tag:
new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc);

// Opted-in path — now rejected:
new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
// throws InvalidStateError: The element name "a\n><script>alert(1)</script" is not a valid XML QName

Why the default stays verbatim

The W3C DOM Parsing require-well-formed flag defaults to false, and browser XMLSerializer emits
names verbatim when it is unset. Throwing unconditionally would be an unjustified breaking change, so
the check stays gated on the caller opting in with { requireWellFormed: true }.

Residual limitation

The default serialization path (no requireWellFormed) still emits names verbatim by design (above).
Names introduced through createElement / setAttribute are never validated at creation — those APIs
store the name unchecked by design — so the opt-in serializer check remains the only guard on that
path.

References

@karfau karfau published to xmldom/xmldom Aug 21, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 1, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 8, 2026
Reviewed Sep 8, 2026
Last updated Sep 8, 2026

Severity

High

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 High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
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:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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.
(25th percentile)

Weaknesses

XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection)

The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system. Learn more on MITRE.

Permissive Regular Expression

The product uses a regular expression that does not sufficiently restrict the set of allowed values. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-83617

GHSA ID

GHSA-jxjr-3g7g-3944

Source code

Credits

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