
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: < 0.22.1
Patched in 0.22.1
Details
@nuxtjs/mdc renders untrusted markdown (including raw HTML) to a Vue component tree. Across two prior advisories it added a URL/attribute sanitizer to block dangerous links in that HTML: validateProps / validateProp and an unsafeLinkPrefix deny-list (dist/runtime/parser/utils/props.js). The sanitizer runs at parse time (dist/runtime/parser/compiler.js) and parseMarkdown enables raw HTML by default (allowDangerousHtml: true, dist/runtime/parser/options.js), so the sanitizer is the only barrier and it applies with no configuration required.
Two sibling vectors bypass that sanitizer at the default configuration:
SVG anchor xlink:href. validateProp only scheme-checks attributes named exactly href or src:
if (attribute === "href" || attribute === "src") return isAnchorLinkAllowed(value);
return true;
An xlink:href (parsed to the hast property xLinkHref) is neither, so a javascript: URL on an SVG <a> is passed through. The renderer maps the property back to the real attribute (MDCRenderer.vue: find(html, "xLinkHref").attribute is xlink:href), so the output element is <a xlink:href="javascript:...">. Clicking it runs the script in the page origin. Plain <a href="javascript:..."> is correctly stripped, which is what makes this the un-patched sibling.
<iframe src="data:text/html,...">. data:text/html is present in unsafeLinkPrefix, but the check compares it against url.protocol:
if (unsafeLinkPrefix.some((prefix) => url.protocol.toLowerCase().startsWith(prefix))) return false;
For any data URI url.protocol is just "data:", so "data:".startsWith("data:text/html") is always false. Every data:text/* entry in the deny-list is therefore dead code, and <iframe src="data:text/html,<script>...</script>"> is allowed (iframe is not in the render-time dangerousTags, which is only ["script","base"]). The framed document executes script in an opaque origin. For contrast, srcdoc and object are blocked, so this is a precise gap rather than a general absence of filtering.
I will attach the zip file for POC, you can simply extract and run ./poc.sh to install mdc and show the poc in the html file.
nuxtjs-mdc-xss_poc.zip
Two zero-argument checks:
sh poc/poc.sh installs @nuxtjs/mdc and runs parseMarkdown (the documented API) at default. It shows the parsed tree retains a { xLinkHref: "javascript:..." } and iframe { src: "data:text/html,..." }, while the control payloads href="javascript:..." and srcdoc=... are removed by the sanitizer. This isolates the sanitizer bypass deterministically.poc/poc.sh also serves poc/poc.html over http (data: iframes and javascript: links are restricted under the file:// origin, so http is used). Open the printed URL and click the blue SVG link. The page contains the exact DOM the renderer produces for those parsed nodes; clicking the SVG link executes script in the page origin (same-origin), and the data:text/html iframe executes on load. The page prints VULNERABLE for each that fires.Both vectors were confirmed executing in a current Chromium build: the SVG xlink:href link runs script in the document origin on click, and the data:text/html iframe runs script on load.
In validateProp, scheme-check xlink:href (and the hast xLinkHref) the same way as href/src. In isAnchorLinkAllowed, compare the dangerous MIME-typed entries against the full URL (or href), not against url.protocol, so data:text/html is actually matched; or add iframe to the render-time dangerous-tag set / restrict iframe src schemes.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.47%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 41.0% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/1/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.