vulnerability / NVI-00006788 / Revision 4
Contao: Cross-site scripting in the comments bundle
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for contao/comments-bundle, contao/comments-bundle. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
9.3 critical
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
9.3 CRITICAL (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
0.277%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.20194. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
contao/comments-bundle
source listed>= 4.0.0, < 5.3.50
An unauthenticated front end visitor can post a comment containing a XSS injection. The victim is any back end user who opens the Comments module, and moderation makes exposure certain rather than preventing it. No `Content-Security-Policy` header is sent on the Contao back end, so nothing mitigates the inline handler. ### Impact Anyone on the internet can inject script that executes in the Contao back end origin, under the session of whichever user opens the Comments module, with no click and no hover. From there the payload acts as that user through the back end: reading any module they can reach, creating a new administrator, or editing a template, which on Contao is a documented path from back end write access to code execution. Moderation does not help and in fact guarantees exposure, since unpublished comments are still inserted and a moderator has to open the list to act on them.
contao/comments-bundle
source listed>= 5.4.0-RC1, < 5.7.12
An unauthenticated front end visitor can post a comment containing a XSS injection. The victim is any back end user who opens the Comments module, and moderation makes exposure certain rather than preventing it. No `Content-Security-Policy` header is sent on the Contao back end, so nothing mitigates the inline handler. ### Impact Anyone on the internet can inject script that executes in the Contao back end origin, under the session of whichever user opens the Comments module, with no click and no hover. From there the payload acts as that user through the back end: reading any module they can reach, creating a new administrator, or editing a template, which on Contao is a documented path from back end write access to code execution. Moderation does not help and in fact guarantees exposure, since unpublished comments are still inserted and a moderator has to open the list to act on them.
contao/comments-bundle
source listedECOSYSTEM: introduced 4.0.0; fixed 5.3.50
An unauthenticated front end visitor can post a comment containing a XSS injection. The victim is any back end user who opens the Comments module, and moderation makes exposure certain rather than preventing it. No `Content-Security-Policy` header is sent on the Contao back end, so nothing mitigates the inline handler. ### Impact Anyone on the internet can inject script that executes in the Contao back end origin, under the session of whichever user opens the Comments module, with no click and no hover. From there the payload acts as that user through the back end: reading any module they can reach, creating a new administrator, or editing a template, which on Contao is a documented path from back end write access to code execution. Moderation does not help and in fact guarantees exposure, since unpublished comments are still inserted and a moderator has to open the list to act on them.
contao/comments-bundle
source listedECOSYSTEM: introduced 5.4.0-RC1; fixed 5.7.12
An unauthenticated front end visitor can post a comment containing a XSS injection. The victim is any back end user who opens the Comments module, and moderation makes exposure certain rather than preventing it. No `Content-Security-Policy` header is sent on the Contao back end, so nothing mitigates the inline handler. ### Impact Anyone on the internet can inject script that executes in the Contao back end origin, under the session of whichever user opens the Comments module, with no click and no hover. From there the payload acts as that user through the back end: reading any module they can reach, creating a new administrator, or editing a template, which on Contao is a documented path from back end write access to code execution. Moderation does not help and in fact guarantees exposure, since unpublished comments are still inserted and a moderator has to open the list to act on them.
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
- vendor patch
The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 5.3.50 for contao/comments-bundle. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV
- vendor patch
The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 5.7.12 for contao/comments-bundle. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
- NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-628f-v4f6-p37r ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- GHSA-628f-v4f6-p37r ↗
GitHub Advisory Database via OSV · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub-origin advisory, CC-BY-4.0; OSV is an aggregate copy, not independent corroboration.
- CVE-2026-107845 ↗
NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog
Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- CVE-2026-107845 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 4 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 3 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.