CVE Intelligence
Medium Cross-site scripting

CVE-2026-100691 — Hugo before 0.166.0 Stored XSS via lineAnchors code block option

Hugo versions 0.75.0 through 0.165.x contain a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability: the syntax highlighter does not escape the `lineAnchors` option before passing it to Chroma, which writes the value verbatim into the `id` and `href` attributes of the generated line-number markup. A crafted `lineAnchors` value supplied as a Markdown code fence attribute (or passed to the `highlight` template function) results in unescaped HTML in the rendered page, allowing arbitrary JavaScript to execute in the browsers of visitors to the generated site. This affects sites that build and publish Markdown from untrusted contributors; Hugo's security model otherwise considers content trusted input. Fixed in 0.166.0, where the `lineAnchors` value is HTML-escaped before being passed to Chroma.

Published Sep 26, 2026 · Updated Oct 16, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: VulnCheck

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • Technical severity (medium)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Gohugo
Hugo
CVSS base
5.4
Medium · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Gohugo Hugo, Gohugoio Hugo).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (cross-site scripting), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Gohugo Hugo ≥ 0.75.0 and < 0.166.0 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Gohugoio Hugo ≥ 0.75.0 and < 0.166.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
5.1 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.1 CVSS 4.0 Medium — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.3 2.7 disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.4 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Monitor CSP violation reports and script payloads in reflected parameters.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · gohugoio/hugo
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 16, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 5.4
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Analyzed
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 26, 2026 · VulnCheck

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Gohugo
every CVE for this vendor
Cross-site scripting
same class
CWE-79
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-109597 Hugo v0.60.0 before v0.167.0 Stored XSS via Table of Contents Heading IDs 3d
  • CVE-2026-109596 Hugo from v0.162.0 before v0.167.0 Symlink File Disclosure via Nested Mount Ancestor 3d
  • CVE-2026-109595 Hugo v0.84.0 before v0.167.0 Path Traversal via js.Build ESBuild Resolver 3d
  • CVE-2026-109574 Hugo before v0.167.0 Path Traversal via css.Sass Import Fallback 3d
  • CVE-2026-100693 Hugo v0.162.0 before v0.166.0 IP-literal Deny Rule Bypass 19d
  • CVE-2026-100694 Hugo before 0.166.0 Cross-Site Scripting via text/org 19d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-100691 is "Hugo before 0.166.0 Stored XSS via lineAnchors code block option", rated Medium. It affects Hugo (Gohugo); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.4 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.