LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2013-4170: In general, Ember.js escapes or strips any user-supplied content before inserting it in strings that will b...

In general, Ember.js escapes or strips any user-supplied content before inserting it in strings that will be sent to innerHTML. However, the `tagName` property of an `Ember.View` was inserted into such a string without being sanitized. This means that if an application assigns a view's `tagName` to user-supplied data, a specially-crafted payload could execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the current domain ("XSS"). This vulnerability only affects applications that assign or bind user-provided content to `tagName`.

UnknownCVSS not scoredNot KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2013-4170 is a cross-site scripting issue in older Ember.js ember-source releases. It matters only when an application puts user-controlled data into an Ember.View tagName. In that case, a crafted value could run JavaScript in the current site’s domain.

Executive priority

Treat this as a focused legacy application risk. It is not reported as actively exploited in the provided sources, but affected internet-facing apps with dynamic tagName handling can expose users and sessions to XSS.

Technical view

Ember.js normally escapes or strips user content before innerHTML insertion, but Ember.View tagName was inserted without sanitization. Affected package data lists ember-source versions before 1.0.0.rc1.1. The weakness is CWE-79 and depends on application code assigning or binding user-provided content to tagName.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in legacy Ember applications using ember-source before 1.0.0.rc1.1 and dynamic Ember.View tagName values derived from users, requests, profiles, CMS content, or API data.

Exploitation context

The source bundle does not cite active exploitation, and this CVE is not listed as KEV. Exploitation requires a vulnerable coding pattern, not merely having Ember installed. Successful exploitation could execute JavaScript in the affected site’s browser context.

Researcher notes

The key condition is application-level data flow into Ember.View tagName. Version presence alone is insufficient for exploitability. Validate both package version and whether untrusted data can influence tagName before assigning remediation urgency.

Mitigation direction

  • Inventory ember-source versions and identify releases before 1.0.0.rc1.1.
  • Check Ember and package advisory guidance for the supported fixed version.
  • Remove user-controlled assignments or bindings to Ember.View tagName.
  • Use fixed, developer-controlled tagName values wherever possible.
  • Retire or isolate legacy Ember code that cannot be upgraded.

Validation and detection

  • Confirm whether ember-source before 1.0.0.rc1.1 exists in production dependencies.
  • Search code for Ember.View tagName assignments and bindings.
  • Trace tagName values back to user, request, CMS, or API inputs.
  • Review browser-rendered pages that use dynamic views for unexpected script execution risk.
  • Document any compensating controls if upgrade is delayed.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
5

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-79: User-session and phishing behavior lookup

Client-side and session-facing weaknesses should be reviewed alongside initial-access and user-execution behaviors. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2013-4170 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
Unknown
CVSS
Not scored
Known Exploited
No
Published
Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

0CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
4Source links

CVSS and timeline data

No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
n/aember-sourceember-source < 1.0.0.rc1.1Listed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-79 · source CWE mapping

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.