Skip to content

Fiber vulnerable to XSS in AutoFormat Content Negotiation

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 25, 2026 in gofiber/fiber • Updated May 13, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

<= 2.52.12

Patched versions

2.52.13
gomod github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3 (Go)
<= 3.1.0
3.2.0

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.
// 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.

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

# 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

curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:3000/api/user?name=Alice' -H 'Accept: application/json'
{"id":1,"name":"Alice"}

HTML sink enables XSS

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>

References

@ReneWerner87 ReneWerner87 published to gofiber/fiber Apr 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 5, 2026
Reviewed May 5, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 11, 2026
Last updated May 13, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(12th percentile)

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-42554

GHSA ID

GHSA-qjv7-627w-8qjv

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.