## Summary The iOS implementation of `cordova-plugin-inappbrowser` passes the `id` field from…
CVE-2026-47430 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in Cordova Plugin InAppBrowser from Apache, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected Cordova Plugin InAppBrowser versions: 3.1.0 through 6.0.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.72% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 55% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Cordova Inappbrowser to 6.0.1 or a later version.
- Read the advisory on lists.apache.org for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apache | Cordova Plugin InAppBrowser | 3.1.0 through 6.0.0 | Not stated |
| Apache | Cordova Inappbrowser | 3.1.0 up to, but not including, 6.0.1 | 6.0.1 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- NoneAvailability is not affected.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | 9.5 | Critical | CNA (apache.org) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.5 | High | NVD |
Official description
## Summary The iOS implementation of `cordova-plugin-inappbrowser` passes the `id` field from a `WKScriptMessage` body to `commandDelegate sendPluginResult:callbackId:` with no format validation (`CDVWKInAppBrowser.m:560–574`). Any web content loaded inside the InAppBrowser can fire any pending Cordova callback in the host app by posting a message whose `id` field is a guessable or enumerated callback identifier. An attack abusing this weakness must be tailored to the specific plugins and callback IDs the host app uses. Though an attacker with knowledge of common Cordova plugin configurations could craft reusable payloads targeting widely-adopted plugins. ## Impact An unauthenticated remote attacker who controls content displayed in the InAppBrowser — via a URL the app opens (OAuth redirect, marketing link, deep-link target) or a network interception — can call `window.webkit.messageHandlers.cordova_iab.postMessage({id: '<victim-callback-id>', d: '...'})` to fire callbacks belonging to any other installed Cordova plugin (Camera, Contacts, File, Geolocation). Cordova callback IDs follow the predictable format `<PluginName><sequential-integer>`, making enumeration feasible. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to spoof plugin results across trust boundaries — for example, injecting a forged camera approval, a fabricated contacts list, or a crafted file-read response. This issue affects Cordova Plugin InAppBrowser: from 3.1.0 through 6.0.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.0.1, which fixes the issue.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Third-party and government advisories
- openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/06/07/1Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.