VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29038: dgtlmoon changedetection.io · Cross-site Scripting

Affects dgtlmoon changedetection.ioSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium : upgrade to 0.54.4 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.54.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade changedetection.io and dgtlmoon/changedetection.io to 0.54.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
dgtlmoonchangedetection.io	Affected <0.54.4	Fixed in 0.54.4
GitHubdgtlmoon/changedetection.io`pkg:github/dgtlmoon/changedetection.io`Other threats	Affected <0.54.4	Fixed in 0.54.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade changedetection.io to version 0.54.4 or later, where the reflected XSS issue has been patched. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement strict input validation and output encoding on the tag_uuid parameter to ensure that any user-supplied input is properly escaped before being included in HTML responses. Consider configuring Flask to return safer content types or explicitly set response headers to prevent browsers from interpreting responses as HTML when not intended. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of inline scripts and reduce the impact of potential XSS attacks. Additionally, educate users to be cautious about clicking on suspicious or unexpected URLs, especially those containing unusual parameters. Regularly audit web application endpoints for similar injection flaws and adopt secure coding practices that include sanitizing all user inputs and using templating engines that automatically escape output. Monitoring logs for unusual access patterns to the /rss/tag/ endpoint can help detect attempted exploitation. Finally, maintain an up-to-date inventory of software components and apply security patches promptly to reduce exposure to known vulnerabilities.

Description

changedetection.io is a free open source web page change detection tool. Prior to version 0.54.4, there is a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability identified in the /rss/tag/ endpoint of changedetection.io. The tag_uuid path parameter is reflected directly in the HTTP response body without HTML escaping. Since Flask returns text/html by default for plain string responses, the browser parses and executes injected JavaScript. This issue has been patched in version 0.54.4.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on the confidentiality and integrity of users interacting with affected changedetection.io instances. Successful exploitation allows attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the victim’s browser, potentially leading to session hijacking, theft of sensitive information, or unauthorized actions performed on behalf of the user. Although availability is not affected, the breach of confidentiality and integrity could undermine trust in the service and expose users to further attacks such as phishing or malware delivery. Organizations running vulnerable versions of changedetection.io may face risks of data leakage or compromise of user accounts, especially if the tool is used in environments with sensitive monitoring or alerting functions. Since exploitation requires user interaction, the threat is somewhat limited to targeted phishing or social engineering campaigns. However, the reflected nature of the XSS means attackers can craft URLs that, when clicked, trigger the malicious payload. The medium CVSS score reflects these factors, indicating a moderate but actionable risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate urgency but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers could develop exploits at any time. Overall, the vulnerability could be leveraged to undermine user trust and compromise sensitive information in affected deployments worldwide.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
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…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 13 Mar 2026, 19:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats