Skip to content

CVE-2026-50556

Cross-site Scripting: is CVE-2026-50556real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Base severity
6.1 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Angularjs

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.16, 20.3.24, and 19.2.25, a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server's DOM emulation dependency (domino) when serializing the content of <noscript> elements. When rendering dynamic text content inside a <noscript> element via template bindings (such as {{ value }} or [textContent]), the template engine expects the browser to render the content safely. Under Server-Side Rendering (SSR), domino is configured with scripting enabled, meaning <noscript> is treated as a raw-text element. However, domino's serializer completely omitted <noscript> from the list of raw-text elements requiring closing-tag escaping during DOM serialization. As a result, any occurrence of </noscript> in the bound dynamic text was never escaped under any circumstances. The unescaped closing tag was serialized directly into the output HTML (e.g. <noscript></noscript><script>alert(1)</script></noscript>). When parsed by a browser, it closes the <noscript> block early, allowing the injected <script> block to execute in the user's browser context, causing same-origin Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.16, 20.3.24, and 19.2.25.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-50556
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50556/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50556)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50556"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-50556/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-50556"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting.