HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2023 29008 sveltekit framework has insufficient csrf
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 8.8CVE-2023-29008GHSA-GV7G-X59X-WF8F

SvelteKit framework has Insufficient CSRF protection for CORS requestsCVE-2023-29008

Answer in brief

CVE-2023-29008 records a High severity (CVSS 8.8) vulnerability in SvelteKit framework has Insufficient CSRF protection for CORS requests. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps @sveltejs/kit (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Apr 7, 2023Updated Oct 18, 2026Source checked Oct 18, 2026First seen by HOL Oct 18, 2026Material review Oct 18, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 8.8
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 8.8. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps @sveltejs/kit (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
@sveltejs/kitnpm<1.15.21.15.2

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for @sveltejs/kit.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update @sveltejs/kit to 1.15.2 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Apr 7, 2023

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 18, 2026

    Evidence: source:ghsa:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Oct 18, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
Upstream source description

### Summary The SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a `+server.js` file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods. SvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at `kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js`. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased `Content-Type` header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests ### Details The CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below. ``` javascript const forbidden = is_form_content_type(request) && (request.method === 'POST' || request.method === 'PUT' || request.method === 'PATCH' || request.method === 'DELETE') && request.headers.get('origin') !== url.origin; if (forbidden) { const csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`); if (request.headers.get('accept') === 'application/json') { return json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status }); } return text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status }); } ``` If the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server’s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request’s `Content-Type` header whether the value is either `application/x-www-form-urlencoded`, `multipart/form-data` or `text/plain`. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response. However, `is_form_content_type`, which is responsible for checking the value of the `Content-Type` header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking `Content-Type` with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased `Content-Type` header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the `Content-Type` header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., `text/plaiN`) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler. <!-- ### PoC 1. Set up the SvelteKit with `POST /api/test` endpoint. 2. Replace `REPLACE_DOMAIN` in the following HTML. ``` html <script> (async() => { await fetch("https://REPLACE_DOMAIN/api/test", {method: "POST", headers:{"Content-Type":"text/plaiN"}, body: "hello=world"}); })(); </script> ``` 3. Confirm that a POST request is processed by the server. --> ### Impact If abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim's session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users’ accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases: 1. If the target site sets `SameSite=None` on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser 2. If the target site doesn't set the `SameSite` attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off. 3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser. ### Remediations It is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set `SameSite` to a value other than `None` on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
CSRF
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-352, CWE-918
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Oct 18, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record