CVE-2026-84164 (GCVE-0-2026-84164)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-11-06 10:35 – Updated: 2026-11-06 10:35
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
Stored XSS in the static HTML report export, because json.dumps does not escape the markup character
Summary
The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.
The input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one.
Severity
CWE
- CWE-79 - Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting')
Assigner
ERIC
CNA
References
1 reference
Impacted products
1 product
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ericsson | CodeChecker |
Affected:
0 , < 6.29.3
(semver)
|
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "CodeChecker",
"vendor": "Ericsson",
"versions": [
{
"changes": [
{
"at": "6.29.3",
"status": "unaffected"
}
],
"lessThan": "6.29.3",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Arpit Jain"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cdiv\u003eThe HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003eThe input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one.\u003c/div\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML.\n\n\n\n\nThe input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "NONE",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 0,
"baseSeverity": "NONE",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "HIGH",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-79",
"description": "CWE-79 Improper neutralization of input during web page generation (\u0027cross-site scripting\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
"orgId": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
"shortName": "ERIC"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://github.com/Ericsson/codechecker/security/advisories/GHSA-6w9g-677j-q2xq"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Stored XSS in the static HTML report export, because json.dumps does not escape the markup character",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 1.0.5"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "85b1779b-6ecd-4f52-bcc5-73eac4659dcf",
"assignerShortName": "ERIC",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-84164",
"datePublished": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-01T08:00:17.055Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-11-06T10:35:15.739Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.