Skip to content

xmldom: Processing Instruction Target Injection Bypasses requireWellFormed

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

Package

npm @xmldom/xmldom (npm)

Affected versions

>= 0.7.0, <= 0.8.14
>= 0.9.0, <= 0.9.11

Patched versions

0.8.15
0.9.12
npm xmldom (npm)
<= 0.6.0
None

Description

Summary

Document.createProcessingInstruction() in @xmldom/xmldom performs no validation on the target parameter. The requireWellFormed: true serializer option validates only for : in the target and a case-insensitive xml prefix, but does not check for > characters. A > in the target breaks the processing instruction boundary (<?...?>), allowing injection of arbitrary content into the serialized XML output.

Details

Document.createProcessingInstruction(target, data) at lib/dom.js around line 2413 accepts any string as the target parameter and stores it on the PI node without validation.

During serialization, the requireWellFormed code path (around line 3286) performs two checks on PI targets:

  1. Rejects targets containing : (namespace prefix check)
  2. Rejects targets matching xml case-insensitively (reserved prefix)

However, it does NOT validate that the target conforms to the XML Name production, and critically does NOT check for > characters. Since processing instructions are serialized as <?target data?>, a > in the target prematurely closes the PI, causing the remaining content to be interpreted as document content by any downstream XML parser.

Root Cause

  1. createProcessingInstruction() performs no validation on target
  2. The serializer's requireWellFormed check is incomplete -- it only checks for : and xml, missing characters that break PI syntax (>, ?, whitespace)
  3. The serializer emits the target verbatim: <?${target} ${data}?>

Proof of Concept

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

const impl = new DOMImplementation();
const serializer = new XMLSerializer();
const doc = impl.createDocument(null, 'root', null);

// PI target containing > breaks the PI boundary
const pi = doc.createProcessingInstruction('a>', 'data');
doc.documentElement.appendChild(pi);

const output = serializer.serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
console.log(output);
// Output: <root><?a> data?></root>
//
// The > in the target closes the PI prematurely.
// A downstream XML parser sees:
//   - Processing instruction: <?a?>  (target "a", no data)
//   - Text content: " data?>"
//
// requireWellFormed: true did NOT prevent the injection.

Injecting elements via PI target

const pi2 = doc.createProcessingInstruction(
  'a?><script xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">alert(1)</script><?b',
  ''
);
doc.documentElement.appendChild(pi2);

const output2 = serializer.serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
console.log(output2);
// Output includes:
//   <?a?><script xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">alert(1)</script><?b ?>
//
// The injected <script> element is valid XHTML that a browser would execute.

Impact

Applications that create processing instructions with user-controlled target strings and serialize the result are vulnerable to XML injection. This enables:

  • XML structure injection: Breaking the PI boundary to inject arbitrary elements, text, or additional processing instructions into the output
  • XSS via XHTML: If the serialized output is served as XHTML or processed by a browser-based XML parser, injected script elements will execute
  • XXE chain: Injected DOCTYPE declarations or entity references could trigger XXE in downstream XML parsers that consume the output
  • requireWellFormed bypass: The existing well-formedness checks are incomplete and provide a false sense of security

Fix Applied

Under requireWellFormed, the serializer validates a processing-instruction target as an XML NCName (a Name with no colon) and rejects a case-insensitive xml, throwing InvalidStateError when the target is ill-formed — so a >, ?, or whitespace in the target is now refused.
On 0.9.12 this replaces an earlier check that already rejected a colon or xml, so the no-colon rule is preserved.
0.8.15 had no processing-instruction target check at all, so the whole target validation is new there.
Non-breaking and opt-in. See the XML Name production.

⚠ 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 impl = new DOMImplementation();
const serializer = new XMLSerializer();
const doc = impl.createDocument(null, 'root', null);

// PI target containing > breaks the PI boundary
const pi = doc.createProcessingInstruction('a>', 'data');
doc.documentElement.appendChild(pi);

// Default path: emits the ill-formed target verbatim.
console.log(serializer.serializeToString(doc));
// Output: <root><?a> data?></root>

// Opt-in path: the target check now rejects the break-out character.
try {
  serializer.serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
} catch (e) {
  console.log(e.name); // InvalidStateError
}

Why the default stays verbatim

W3C DOM Parsing's require-well-formed flag defaults to false, and the browser XMLSerializer emits the target verbatim in that default mode. Unconditionally throwing on an ill-formed PI target would diverge from that platform behavior and would be an unjustified breaking change, so the stricter validation is gated behind { requireWellFormed: true }. (See the W3C XML Name production and XML Processing Instructions.)

Residual limitation

The default serialization path still emits the ill-formed target verbatim -- only the opt-in requireWellFormed path is protected. Creation-time validation of the target in createProcessingInstruction() is breaking and is deferred to the next breaking release, tracked at xmldom/xmldom#1073.

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.
(47th 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.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-83616

GHSA ID

GHSA-c7q8-3ch8-vqpv

Source code

Credits

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