Skip to content

xmldom: Element name injection via createElement() bypasses requireWellFormed

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 12, 2026 in xmldom/xmldom • Updated Sep 8, 2026

Package

npm @xmldom/xmldom (npm)

Affected versions

>= 0.9.0, <= 0.9.10
>= 0.7.0, <= 0.8.13

Patched versions

0.9.11
0.8.14
npm xmldom (npm)
<= 0.6.0
None

Description

Summary

Document.createElement() in @xmldom/xmldom accepts arbitrary strings as the tagName parameter with zero validation. The serializer emits the tag name verbatim into XML/HTML output. Critically, the requireWellFormed: true serializer option — the recommended mitigation from CVE-2026-41672, CVE-2026-41674, and CVE-2026-34601 — did NOT catch this, making it a bypass of the existing security controls.

An attacker who controls the element name string can inject arbitrary attributes (including event handlers) into the serialized output, leading to XSS when the output is consumed by a browser or downstream parser.

Details

Document.createElement() accepts any string as tagName and stores it directly on the element node without validation. When the document is later serialized via XMLSerializer.serializeToString(), the serializer emits the tagName verbatim into the output.

The XML specification requires element names to conform to the Name production. The existing createAttributeNS() and createElementNS() methods validate qualified names against an anchored name/QName pattern, but createElement() bypasses this entirely, and the requireWellFormed: true serializer path performed no element-name validation — rendering it ineffective against this vector.

Root Cause

  1. createElement() stores the raw tagName string without any validation.
  2. The serializer's requireWellFormed code path did not validate element names against the XML Name/QName production.
  3. The serializer emits tagName directly into angle brackets: <${tagName}...>.

Proof of Concept

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

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

// Inject an element whose "name" contains attributes with an XSS payload
const el = doc.createElement('img src=x onerror="alert(1)"');
doc.documentElement.appendChild(el);

const output = serializer.serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
console.log(output);
// <root><img src=x onerror="alert(1)"/></root>
//
// A browser parsing this HTML will execute alert(1).
// requireWellFormed: true did NOT prevent the injection.

Impact

Applications that use @xmldom/xmldom to construct DOM trees and serialize them to XML/HTML are vulnerable to injection attacks if any part of an element name originates from user input. This includes:

  • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): Injecting event handler attributes (onerror, onclick, etc.) into HTML output consumed by browsers.
  • XML injection: Breaking XML document structure by injecting closing tags, new elements, or processing instructions through the element name.
  • Security control bypass: Applications that adopted requireWellFormed: true as a mitigation for CVE-2026-41672 / 41674 / 34601 remained vulnerable through this vector.

@xmldom/xmldom can also be used inside browsers, where it mirrors the DOM API. Unlike the browser's createElement(), which rejects an invalid name with InvalidCharacterError, xmldom accepts it — developers may assume the same safety and skip validation.

Fix Applied

⚠ 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.

When { requireWellFormed: true } is passed, the serializer now validates each element's serialized qualified name against the XML QName production and throws InvalidStateError before emitting the start tag. This also covers the namespace-prefix sub-vector: an invalid prefix surfaces either in the element qualified name (PREFIX:local) or in a synthesized xmlns:PREFIX declaration, and both are QName-checked.

Fixed under requireWellFormed: true in @xmldom/xmldom 0.9.11 and 0.8.14. Default serialization is unchanged.

PoC — fixed path

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

const doc = new DOMImplementation().createDocument(null, 'root', null);
doc.documentElement.appendChild(doc.createElement('img src=x onerror="alert(1)"'));

// Default (unchanged): verbatim — injection present
console.log(new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc));
// <root><img src=x onerror="alert(1)"/></root>

// Opt-in guard: throws InvalidStateError before serializing
try {
  new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc, { requireWellFormed: true });
} catch (e) {
  console.log(e.name, e.message);
  // InvalidStateError: The element name "img src=x onerror="alert(1)"" is not a valid XML QName
}

Why the default stays verbatim

The W3C DOM Parsing and Serialization spec defines a require well-formed flag whose default value is false. With the flag unset, the serializer emits element names verbatim, matching the XMLSerializer behavior of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Unconditionally throwing would be a behavioral breaking change with no spec justification; the opt-in requireWellFormed: true flag lets applications that require injection safety enable strict mode without breaking existing code.

Residual limitation

createElement(tagName) does not validate tagName at creation time. Enforcing an InvalidCharacterError for invalid names unconditionally at creation time is a breaking change and is deferred to the next breaking release. When the default serialization path is used (without requireWellFormed: true), invalid element names are still emitted verbatim; applications that do not pass requireWellFormed: true remain exposed.

Creation-time validation is tracked in a public issue on the next breaking-release milestone (filed at publication — issue link to be added), targeting the next breaking release.

References

@karfau karfau published to xmldom/xmldom Aug 12, 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-2026-83607

GHSA ID

GHSA-w2rr-34g9-rvrj

Source code

Credits

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