mirror of
https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox.git
synced 2026-04-26 01:26:00 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #1261] DOM extractor output contains JS that can be executed upon viewing, and is subject to same security risks as viewing WGET output #774
Labels
No labels
expected: maybe someday
expected: next release
expected: release after next
expected: unlikely unless contributed
good first ticket
help wanted
pull-request
scope: all users
scope: windows users
size: easy
size: hard
size: medium
size: medium
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: done
status: idea-phase
status: needs followup
status: wip
status: wontfix
touches: API/CLI/Spec
touches: configuration
touches: data/schema/architecture
touches: dependencies/packaging
touches: docs
touches: js
touches: views/replayers/html/css
why: correctness
why: functionality
why: performance
why: security
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/ArchiveBox#774
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @p0n1 on GitHub (Nov 3, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/issues/1261
I noticed the following descriptions on executing archived JS.
Source: https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox#security-risks-of-viewing-archived-js
Source: https://github.com/ArchiveBox/ArchiveBox/security/advisories/GHSA-cr45-98w9-gwqx
I think the the
SAVE_DOMarchive method could also lead to the similar issue. When viewingChrome > HTML ./output.html, any remote javascript will be loaded and executed.Is that right? If so, we should also document this and remind users to disable this option if they should worry about the XSS/CSRF issue.
@pirate commented on GitHub (Nov 4, 2023):
You're right, it used to be stripped before we expanded it to be the full outerHTML with
<head>, but it I didn't realize it became included when we changed that. Good catch, thanks!I updated the CVE
GHSA-cr45-98w9-gwqxCVE-2023-45815, README.md, and Security Overview Wiki page.