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 2026 42554 fiber vulnerable to xss in autoformat content
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
Unknown severity · Source severity not reportedCVE-2026-42554GHSA-QJV7-627W-8QJV

Fiber vulnerable to XSS in AutoFormat Content NegotiationCVE-2026-42554

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-42554 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in Fiber vulnerable to XSS in AutoFormat Content Negotiation. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2 (go), github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 (go). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

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

Published May 5, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 10, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Unknown severitySource severity not reported
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. 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 github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2 (go), github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 (go). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2go>=0 <2.52.132.52.13
github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3go>=0 <3.2.03.2.0

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2, github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2 to 2.52.13; github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 to 3.2.0 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    May 5, 2026

    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

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

## Summary **Description** A Cross-Site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Go Fiber allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary HTML/JavaScript by supplying `Accept: text/html` on any request whose handler passes attacker-influenced data to the AutoFormat() feature. This affects `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3` (`DefaultRes.AutoFormat`) through version 3.1.0 and `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2` (`Ctx.Format`) through version 2.52.12. The developer opts into content negotiation by calling AutoFormat(), but does not opt into raw HTML emission for a particular request; Fiber chooses that branch from attacker-controlled Accept. Five of the six branches of the same method already escape. `JSON`, `XML`, `MsgPack`, and `CBOR` all route through encoders that neutralize markup; the txt branch emits `text/plain` and cannot execute. The html branch is the sole outlier in a method whose name (`AutoFormat`) and symmetrical structure actively telegraph "safe, format-agnostic reply." ## Details The issue resides in `res.go` within `(*DefaultRes).AutoFormat()`. The method negotiates against the request Accept header, selects one of `html | json | txt | xml | msgpack | cbor`, and serializes the caller-supplied body accordingly. The "html" branch concatenates the stringified body directly into HTML markup with no output encoding: - `accept` comes from `r.c.Accepts(...)`, i.e. is fully attacker-controlled. An attacker can force the "html" branch on any `AutoFormat()` call regardless of which format the developer tested against. - `b` is produced from `body` via direct assignment (`string` / `[]byte`) or `fmt.Sprintf("%v", body)`. No `html.EscapeString` is applied. - The resulting string is sent as `text/html; charset=utf-8`, so browsers render it as active HTML. ```go // res.go func (r *DefaultRes) AutoFormat(body any) error { accept := r.c.DefaultReq.Accepts("html", "json", "txt", "xml", "msgpack", "cbor") r.Type(accept) var b string switch val := body.(type) { case string: b = val case []byte: b = r.c.app.toString(val) default: b = fmt.Sprintf("%v", val) } switch accept { case "txt": return r.SendString(b) case "json": return r.JSON(body) case "xml": return r.XML(body) case "html": return r.SendString("<p>" + b + "</p>") case "msgpack": return r.MsgPack(body) case "cbor": return r.CBOR(body) } return r.SendString(b) } ``` ## Impact This impacts all current v3 releases ≤ 3.1.0 containing `DefaultRes.AutoFormat`, and all current v2 releases ≤ 2.52.12 where the identical `"<p>" + b + "</p>"` construction exists in `(*Ctx).Format()`. Exploitation requires that an application call `c.AutoFormat(v)` where `v` (or a field stringified by `%v`) contains request-influenced data. A handler that uses `AutoFormat()` to serve multiple representations of the same data can be turned into an HTML XSS sink when the client sends `Accept: text/html`, even if the developer only tested the JSON path. This may result in: - **Reflected XSS** in the application's origin via any request-derived value reaching `AutoFormat`. - **Stored XSS** where the reflected value originates from persisted input later passed to `AutoFormat`. ## Proposed Patch The injection surface is `r.Type("html")` followed by `r.SendString(b)` with unescaped caller data, where it constructs markup on the caller's behalf around a value whose HTML-ness the caller did not declare. A few options: - `AutoFormat()` should treat `body` as data, not markup, in the `"html"` branch and escape it before concatenating it into the framework-generated `<p>` wrapper. Callers that need raw negotiated HTML should use `Format()` with an explicit HTML handler. - Introduce a sibling method that escapes, leave `AutoFormat` alone for backward compatibility. HTML-escape the value in the "html" branch before concatenating it into the `<p>` wrapper. ```go import "html" // ... case "html": return r.SendString("<p>" + html.EscapeString(b) + "</p>") ``` `html.EscapeString` escapes `<`, `>`, `&`, `'`, `"`, which is sufficient for an element-text context. Apply the same change to v2's `(*Ctx).Format()`. ## Proof of Concept ```bash # Create project directory mkdir fiber-xss-poc && cd fiber-xss-poc # Initialize Go module go mod init fiber-xss-poc # Install Fiber v3 go get github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 # Create the PoC file cat > main.go << 'EOF' package main import ( "github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3" ) type User struct { ID int `json:"id"` Name string `json:"name"` } func main() { app := fiber.New() app.Get("/api/user", func(c fiber.Ctx) error { user := User{ ID: 1, Name: c.Query("name", "anonymous"), } return c.AutoFormat(user) }) app.Listen(":3000") } EOF # Run it go run main.go } ``` Benign JSON ```bash curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=Alice' -H 'Accept: application/json' {"id":1,"name":"Alice"} ``` HTML sink enables XSS ```bash curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=<script>alert(document.domain)</script>' -H 'Accept: text/html' <p>{1 <script>alert(document.domain)</script>}</p> ```

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

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