Skip to content

xmldom: HTML raw-text closing-tag case mismatch causes output amplification

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

Package

npm @xmldom/xmldom (npm)

Affected versions

>= 0.9.0-beta.1, <= 0.9.11

Patched versions

0.9.12

Description

Summary

In HTML mode (text/html), a raw-text element (script, style, textarea, title) whose closing
tag differs in case from its opening tag (e.g. </ScRiPt> for <script>) is mishandled by the
parser, producing quadratic (O(n²)) output growth — a small crafted document parses and serializes
into output orders of magnitude larger, exhausting CPU and memory. A modest input of tens of KB can
therefore cause a denial of service in any service that parses untrusted HTML with xmldom. Only HTML
mode is affected.

Details

The parser calls parseHtmlSpecialContent for each raw-text element in HTML mode, matched via
isHTMLRawTextElement / isHTMLEscapableRawTextElement (so all four types — script, style,
textarea, title — are in scope). It searches for the element's closing tag with
source.indexOf('</' + tagName + '>', elStartEnd), a byte-for-byte case-sensitive match. A
mixed-case closing tag never matches, so the search returns -1, and the following
source.substring(elStartEnd + 1, -1) extracts text backwards from the start of the document
instead of the element's content. The function then returns -1 to the parse loop, which cannot
advance normally and falls back to character-by-character reprocessing. Every raw-text element
re-captures all source text preceding it, so output grows as O(n²) in the number of such elements.

Root Cause

  1. Case-sensitive close-tag search (lib/sax.js:549): source.indexOf('</' + tagName + '>', elStartEnd) does not fold case, contrary to the WHATWG HTML RAWTEXT end-tag-name rule.
  2. Unguarded -1 (lib/sax.js:550): source.substring(elStartEnd + 1, elEndStart) runs even
    when elEndStart === -1, extracting text backwards from position 0.
  3. Unstable progression (lib/sax.js:556): the function returns elEndStart (-1), driving
    repeated character-by-character fallback in the parse loop.

Affected Versions

Only the 0.9.x line is affected — the amplification was introduced in 0.9.0-beta.1 when
parseHtmlSpecialContent was refactored, and remains through 0.9.11. The 0.8.x line is not
affected: its older parseHtmlSpecialContent does not amplify, despite sharing the same
case-sensitive indexOf.

Proof of Concept

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

const n = 1000;
const payload = '<html><body>' + '<script>x</ScRiPt>'.repeat(n) + '</body></html>';
const doc = new DOMParser().parseFromString(payload, 'text/html');
const out = new XMLSerializer().serializeToString(doc);
console.log(payload.length, out.length, (out.length / payload.length).toFixed(1) + 'x');
// 18026 9037063 501.3x  — an 18 KB input yields ~9 MB of output

Output size grows quadratically with the number of case-mismatched raw-text elements:

Repeats | Input len | Output len | Ratio
1       | 44        | 109        | 2.5x
100     | 1826      | 93763      | 51.3x
500     | 9026      | 2268563    | 251.3x
1000    | 18026     | 9037063    | 501.3x
2000    | 36026     | 36074063   | 1001.3x

Proof of Concept from @KarimTantawey (tested with script); the same amplification occurs for style,
textarea, and title.

Impact

Small attacker payloads can force disproportionate CPU and memory usage in services that
parse and serialize untrusted HTML via xmldom. The quadratic growth means a modest-sized input
(tens of kilobytes) can produce output in the tens or hundreds of megabytes, potentially
exhausting memory or causing timeouts.

The attack only requires HTML mode (text/html MIME type) and mixed-case closing tags for
any of the four raw-text element types. No special configuration or error handler setup is needed.

Severity note

The CVSS 4.0 vector scores availability only (VA:H, with VC:N/VI:N): the flaw neither discloses
nor corrupts data, but a small untrusted HTML input (tens of KB) can force output and memory in the
tens to hundreds of MB, enough to exhaust a service's heap or stall its event loop. It is reachable
with no authentication, configuration, or error-handler setup — only that the application parses
untrusted text/html and serializes the result.

Fix Applied

The raw-text closing tag is now matched case-insensitively in HTML raw-text mode (per the WHATWG HTML
RAWTEXT end-tag rule),
and a missing closing tag is handled explicitly, removing the quadratic output amplification. Output
for well-formed input is unchanged. Non-breaking; 0.9.x-only.

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 None
Availability High
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:N/VA:H/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.
(44th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results. Learn more on MITRE.

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-83612

GHSA ID

GHSA-6mj3-qw4j-hgrw

Source code

Credits

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