Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.21% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-10618High confidence
Hugo 0.93.0 through 0.165.0 Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Unescaped Code-Fence Attribute Values
gohugoio · hugo
4.8MediumCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 10 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs gohugoio hugo and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 10 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Red Hat Product Security: 7 affected or under-investigation product states without a fixed product state in the same current advisory
- Debian Security Tracker: 3 affected package states with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 3 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | hugo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.166.0-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · esm-apps | hugo | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-10618 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securitygithub.com/gohugoio/hugo: Hugo: Stored Cross-Site Scripting via unescaped code-fence attribute values
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- grafana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana-selinux as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- hugo.src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps
- openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps
- rhoso-operators/openstack-operator-bundle as a component of Red Hat OpenStack Platform 18.0
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Hugo's default fenced-code-block renderer. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary script code into the rendered HTML by providing specially crafted input in the code-fence info string. Due to improper escaping of attribute values, a malicious quote can terminate an attribute and allow the injection of additional attributes, including event handlers. This can lead to client-side arbitrary code execution when a user views the affected page.
- Remediation
- Update to a fixed version of Hugo. As a workaround, disable code-fence attribute support in the goldmark configuration by setting markup.highlight.codeFences to false, or use a custom render hook that explicitly escapes attribute values before writing them to HTML output.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 10 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
Hugo's default fenced-code-block renderer writes attribute values taken from the code-fence info string into the rendered HTML without escaping them. New in markup/internal/attributes/attributes.go converts every attribute value from a byte slice to a string as it is stored, deliberately dropping the escaping that used to happen there, and RenderAttributes in the same file escapes only values that are still byte slices, so its escaping branch is never reached and every value is written verbatim. The function's documentation states that it performs HTML escaping of string attributes, which it does not. A quote inside an attribute value in the info string therefore terminates the attribute and allows a further attribute, including an event handler, to be placed on the wrapper element, and the script runs for every visitor who loads the page. This path is reached under the default configuration, with code fences enabled and without goldmark's unsafe setting or any custom render hook. Attribute names beginning with on are filtered when the attributes are parsed, so injection is achieved through the value rather than the name.
What
Hugo's default fenced-code-block renderer writes attribute values taken from the code-fence info string into the rendered HTML without escaping them. New in markup/internal/attributes/attributes.go converts every attribute value from a byte slice to a string as it is stored, deliberately dropping the escaping that used to happen there, and RenderAttributes in the same file escapes only values that are still byte slices, so its escaping branch is never reached and every value is written verbatim. The function's documentation states that it performs HTML escaping of string attributes, which it does not. A quote inside an attribute value in the info string therefore terminates the attribute and allows a further attribute, including an event handler, to be placed on the wrapper element, and the script runs for every visitor who loads the page. This path is reached under the default configuration, with code fences enabled and without goldmark's unsafe setting or any custom render hook. Attribute names beginning with on are filtered when the attributes are parsed, so injection is achieved through the value rather than the name.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Hugo's default fenced-code-block renderer writes attribute values taken from the code-fence info string into the rendered HTML without escaping them. New in markup/internal/attributes/attributes.go converts every attribute value from a byte slice to a string as it is stored, deliberately dropping the escaping that used to happen there, and RenderAttributes in the same file escapes only values that are still byte slices, so its escaping branch is never reached and every value is written verbatim. The function's documentation states that it performs HTML escaping of string attributes, which it does not. A quote inside an attribute value in the info string therefore terminates the attribute and allows a further attribute, including an event handler, to be placed on the wrapper element, and the script runs for every visitor who loads the page. This path is reached under the default configuration, with code fences enabled and without goldmark's unsafe setting or any custom render hook. Attribute names beginning with on are filtered when the attributes are parsed, so injection is achieved through the value rather than the name.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- Active interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-79 ↗
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'). The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIActiveUser interaction: A user must take a deliberate action for exploitation to succeed.VCLowVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VILowVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCLowSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- grafana as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana-selinux as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- grafana.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- hugo.src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps
- openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps
- rhoso-operators/openstack-operator-bundle as a component of Red Hat OpenStack Platform 18.0
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- Update to a fixed version of Hugo. As a workaround, disable code-fence attribute support in the goldmark configuration by setting markup.highlight.codeFences to false, or use a custom render hook that explicitly escapes attribute values before writing them to HTML output.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 24 Aug 2026 · Last source change 26 Aug 2026, 18:20 UTC · CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-25
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-64776
Product sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 0.93.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- hugo: 0.93.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-64776 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-64776"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.