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 2024 38537 inclusion of untrusted polyfillio code
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
No severity · CVSS 0.0 · CVSS-derivedCVE-2024-38537GHSA-CVW4-C69G-7V7M

Inclusion of Untrusted polyfill.io Code Vulnerability in fides.jsCVE-2024-38537

Answer in brief

CVE-2024-38537 records a None severity (CVSS 0.0) vulnerability in Inclusion of Untrusted polyfill.io Code Vulnerability in fides.js. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps ethyca-fides (pypi). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

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

Published Jul 2, 2024Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 10, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
No severity · CVSS 0.0CVSS-derived · Source severity not reported
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 0.0. 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 ethyca-fides (pypi). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
ethyca-fidespypi>=0 <2.39.12.39.1

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for ethyca-fides.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update ethyca-fides to 2.39.1 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Jul 2, 2024

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

    Sep 10, 2026

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

    Sep 10, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • Source referencefetch.spec.whatwg.org
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
  • Source referencesansec.io
Upstream source description

### Note On Thursday, June 27, 2024, Cloudflare and Namecheap intervened at a domain level to ensure `polyfill.io` and its subdomains could not resolve to the compromised service, rendering this vulnerability **unexploitable**. The following sections describe this vulnerability prior to the domain level intervention, when it was still exploitable. ### Impact `fides.js`, a client-side script used to interact with the consent management features of Fides, used the `polyfill.io` domain in a very limited edge case, when it detected a legacy browser such as IE11 that did not support the fetch standard. On June 25th, 2024, Sansec published the following regarding the `polyfill.io` domain. > The polyfill.js is a popular open source library to support older browsers. 100K+ sites embed it using the cdn.polyfill.io domain... However, in February this year, a Chinese company bought the domain and the Github account. Since then, this domain was caught injecting malware on mobile devices via any site that embeds cdn.polyfill.io. Therefore it was possible for users of legacy, pre-2017 browsers who navigate to a page serving `fides.js` to download and execute malicious scripts from the compromised domain. No exploitation of `fides.js` via `polyfill.io` has been identified at this time, but other script developers who use `https://cdn.polyfill.io/v2/polyfill.min.js` have reported redirects to malicious websites. ### Patches The vulnerability has been patched in Fides version `2.39.1`. Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against this threat. ### Workarounds Prior to the domain level intervention, there were no server-side workarounds and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts of this vulnerability were high. Clients could ensure they were not affected by using a modern browser that supported the fetch standard. caniuse.com/fetch estimates that 97.52% of browser users use a browser that supports the fetch standard. ### References - https://sansec.io/research/polyfill-supply-chain-attack - https://github.com/ethyca/fides/pull/5026/ - https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Supply Chain
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 25, 2026
References
7 linked sources
Open source record