Litestar: HTML Injection Through CSRF Token
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.39% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. A user must open a link or visit a page. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: litestar-org litestar 2.20.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to litestar-org litestar 2.20.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Litestar is an Asynchronous Server Gateway Interface (ASGI) framework. Prior to version 2.20.0, Litestar instances which use a template engine in conjunction with CSRF protection are vulnerable to HTML Injection which can be escalated to Cross Site Scripting due to the contents of the CSRF cookie being excluded from automatic escaping by the template engine when configured inline with documentation recommendations. This issue has been patched in version 2.20.0.
- Published
- Jul 28, 2026
- Updated
- Jul 30, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 32th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-79
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 8.1
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Limit the impact of XSS
This is a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. A well-configured Content-Security-Policy doesn't fix it, but greatly reduces its impact. Check your site's CSP and other security headers for free.
Check security headersVersions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
litestar-org litestar
- < 2.20.0affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | litestar | before 2.22.0 | 2.22.0 |
Same product
litestar-org: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2024-42370Litestar repository vulnerable to Environment Variable injection in `docs-preview.yml` workflow33Monitor
- CVE-2024-32982Litestar and Starlite affected by Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')32Monitor
- CVE-2025-59152X-Forwarded-For Header Spoofing Bypasses Litestar Rate Limiting30Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- Later →CVE-2026-48061Aug 3, 2026 · Litestar: AllowedHostsMiddleware bypasses host validation via client-controlled X-Forwarded-Host header23Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| litestar-org litestar | 2.20.0 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| PyPI:litestar | 2.22.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Proof-of-concept repository on GitHub | stars:0 | 2026-05-19 |
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- First PoC-71 d
- Published
- TodayOct 21, 2026+85 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
nvd-secondary
Root cause
User content is inserted into the page as HTML. The browser interprets the content as code rather than data.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-79 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
commentEl.innerHTML = comment.body;Fixed
commentEl.textContent = comment.body;Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.