GHSA-5qrq-9645-g5g2 CVE-2026-44541 PYSEC-2026-2470
ethyca-fides has a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via fides_description override
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.30%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 22.42% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
2.84.5- Upgrade ethyca-fides to this version or later
Description
Summary
fides.js is the script that renders Fides's consent banner on customer websites. It lets the embedding page override the banner's description text at runtime via a URL query parameter, a JavaScript global, or a cookie. On sites that have opted into HTML-formatted descriptions, the overridden value is rendered as live HTML without passing through the server-side sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust.
The result is a DOM-based XSS that any visitor can trigger with a crafted link, no authentication required. The cookie source lets the payload persist, so a single click can plant a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across all subdomains until cookies are cleared.
Am I affected?
This vulnerability affects Fides Enterprise deployments that use fides.js for consent management, a.k.a. "Janus", and have HTML-formatted banner descriptions enabled (the FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION Privacy Center container env var set to true ). Deployments that do not load fides.js, or that leave HTML descriptions off (the default), are not affected. The vulnerable code lives in the open-source ethyca-fides PyPI package, which is why this is published as a GHSA and CVE against Fides OSS, but only Fides Enterprise consent management platform deployments exercise the affected path.
To self-test, visit any page where your site loads the consent banner, replacing <your-site>:
https://<your-site>/?fides_override_language=en&fides_description=<img src=x onerror="alert(`DOM XSS in fides_description. Origin: ${document.domain}`)">
If a browser alert() appears showing the embedding origin when the banner renders, the deployment is affected. If the banner does not auto-open, click the manage privacy preferences link to display it.
<img width="1392" height="1031" alt="dom-xss-localhost" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/548bcf44-e4ab-4070-ab31-89c6cff79be1" />
If no alert appears, the deployment is not affected via this path.
The fides_override_language=en parameter is required because experience-translation overrides only apply when the override language matches the active locale. Adjust to match the active locale on the target site if en is not it.
Details
The vulnerability is a trust gap between two features that are safe in isolation but unsafe together.
The first feature is the override mechanism. fides.js lets the embedding page replace certain banner fields at runtime by reading them from the URL, a JavaScript global, or a cookie on the page origin. The description text is one of the overrideable fields.
The second feature is HTML-formatted descriptions. When the allowHTMLDescription server-controlled flag is on, the rendering path writes the description into the DOM as live HTML rather than plain text. This mode relies on a server-side sanitiser (nh3) to clean any HTML before it reaches the client, so the rendering sink can trust its input.
Combining the two breaks the assumption. The override mechanism feeds the description directly from a client-controlled source, never reaching the server, so the sanitiser the rendering path was designed to trust never runs. On a deployment that has both features active, an attacker-supplied value travels straight from URL or cookie to the HTML sink and executes as script.
The cookie source compounds the impact. Cookies set by JavaScript on the apex domain are visible to every subdomain on subsequent loads, so a payload delivered via URL can write a fides_description cookie that fires on every later banner render across the entire site, until the cookie is cleared.
Impact
A successful exploit gives the attacker arbitrary JavaScript execution in the embedding site's origin, with the same authority as the site's own scripts. The payload can read and modify any data the page can access, issue requests on behalf of the visitor, and render content that appears to come from the site itself. The actual consequences on a given deployment depend on what the embedding origin holds and what other defences (CSP, cookie flags, origin isolation) are in place.
The cookie-based persistence variant raises the impact ceiling, since a single click can convert into a payload that fires on every subsequent banner render across the apex and all subdomains until the visitor clears their cookies.
Patches
This vulnerability has been patched in Fides OSS version 2.84.5, specifically ethyca/fides-privacy-center:2.84.5 Users are advised to upgrade to this version or later to secure their systems against these threats.
Fides Enterprise (fidesplus) version 2.84.6 contains the same patch.
Workarounds
Set FIDES_PRIVACY_CENTER__ALLOW_HTML_DESCRIPTION=false on the Privacy Center container(s) and redeploy. The XSS sink relies on the flag being on, so turning it off makes fides.js strip HTML from the description before rendering, regardless of which source the value came from.
Severity
This vulnerability has been assigned a severity of HIGH with a CVSS v4 vector of CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N (7.0, High).
The score reflects the worst realistic exploitation path: an attacker who can plant a fides_description cookie on the target origin gets persistent script execution that fires on every visitor's banner render, with no further interaction required. Cookie-write capability is not always available to a remote attacker, and the score accounts for that as a precondition, but when it is available the impact is script execution in the embedding site's origin every time the banner or modal renders.
The more common delivery path (a crafted link the victim clicks) scores 6.3, Medium, with a vector of CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N. Per the FIRST CVSS 4.0 User Guide, library-level vulnerabilities should be scored against the "reasonable worst-case scenario", since the analyst cannot anticipate every deployment context. We publish the higher score on that basis.
The published score is the base severity of the vulnerability itself. Real-world impact on a given deployment can be higher or lower depending on the embedding site's own defences. Sites with HttpOnly session cookies, strict Content-Security-Policy, and authentication flows isolated from the consent experience origin reduce the surface a payload can reach. Sites with permissive CSP, JavaScript-readable session tokens, or same-origin OIDC/social-login flows expose more. Operators should assess the score against their own environment.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ethyca-fides | >= 2.33.0, < 2.84.5 |
2.84.5 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
ethyca-fides PyPI → 2.84.5
- pip
pip install --upgrade "ethyca-fides>=2.84.5"- poetry
poetry add "ethyca-fides>=2.84.5"- uv
uv add "ethyca-fides>=2.84.5"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- High
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- High
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-qx5f-ghc2-7g5c Ethyca Fides has a Privacy Request Identity Verification Bypass Vulnerability via Duplicate Detection | Medium | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-hjfh-p8f5-24wr Fides Webserver API is Vulnerable to OAuth Client Privilege Escalation | High | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-fq34-xw6c-fphf Fides Webserver API Rate Limiting Vulnerability in Proxied Environments | High | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-7q62-r88r-j5gw Fides has a Lack of Brute-Force Protections on Authentication Endpoints | Medium | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-rpw8-82v9-3q87 Fides' Admin UI User Password Change Does Not Invalidate Current Session | Medium | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-v7vm-rhmg-8j2r Password Policy Bypass Vulnerability in Fides Webserver User Accept Invite API | High | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-c34r-238x-f7qx Remote Code Execution Vulnerability via SSTI in Fides Webserver Jinja Email Templating Engine | High | Also affects ethyca-fides |
| GHSA-2h46-8gf5-fmxv Timing-Based Username Enumeration Vulnerability in Fides Webserver Authentication | Medium | Also affects ethyca-fides |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor