Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-23499 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Saleor Saleor. Its CVSS base score is 8.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-3775
Vulnerability Data
Saleor is an e-commerce platform. Starting in version 3.0.0 and prior to versions 3.20.108, 3.21.43, and 3.22.27, Saleor allowed authenticated staff users or Apps to upload arbitrary files, including malicious HTML and SVG files containing Javascript. Depending on the deployment…
more
strategy, these files may be served from the same domain as the dashboard without any restrictions leading to the execution of malicious scripts in the context of the user's browser. Malicious staff members could craft script injections to target other staff members, possibly stealing their access and/or refresh tokens. Users are vulnerable if they host the media files inside the same domain as the dashboard, e.g., dashboard is at `example.com/dashboard/` and media are under `example.com/media/`. They are not impact if media files are hosted in a different domain, e.g., `media.example.com`. Users are impacted if they do not return a `Content-Disposition: attachment` header for the media files. Saleor Cloud users are not impacted. This issue has been patched in versions: 3.22.27, 3.21.43, and 3.20.108. Some workarounds are available for those unable to upgrade. Configure the servers hosting the media files (e.g., CDN or reverse proxy) to return the Content-Disposition: attachment header. This instructs browsers to download the file instead of rendering them in the browser. Prevent the servers from returning HTML and SVG files. Set-up a `Content-Security-Policy` for media files, such as `Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none'; base-uri 'none'; frame-ancestors 'none'; form-action 'none';`.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.1.1V1.1.2V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.
Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.
Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.
Malicious-code protection at entry points blocks dangerous file types from being accepted and executed.
Least functionality restricts the file types and automatic processing capabilities the system will accept.
Mobile-code controls define, authorize, and block unacceptable uploaded code before automatic processing occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Restricting execution of unauthorized software directly blocks dangerous uploaded files from running.
Secure SDLC practices directly target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).
Hardened configuration baselines can enforce allowed file types and processing rules.
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.
Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.
Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.
Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.
Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.
Mandated testing for malicious content and known vulnerabilities reduces the likelihood that an outsourced component will contain or accept dangerous file types that could later be uploaded or executed.