CVE-2024-53382VulnerabilityPublished 4 Mar 2026Updated 17 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Developer Hub 1.9.0 release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

Severity

Medium

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 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 29 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected =1.9.0 Red Hat Red Hat Developer Hub Red Hat Developer Hub 1.9 amd64 registry.redhat.io/rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9@sha256:141aeba778033153ed7005785565c8f3a00f6353be7bb3fd9124d8ad9375d988_amd64	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Red Hat has not provided specific mitigation steps beyond monitoring for updates. Users should follow Red Hat advisories for future patches. Since this is a code injection and DOM Clobbering issue, limiting user input that can influence the DOM or disabling the vulnerable plugin where feasible may reduce risk until a fix is released.

Description

Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) is Red Hat's enterprise-grade, self-managed, customizable developer portal based on Backstage.io. RHDH is supported on OpenShift and other major Kubernetes clusters (AKS, EKS, GKE). The core features of RHDH include a single pane of glass, a centralized software catalog, self-service via golden path templates, and Tech Docs. RHDH is extensible by plugins.

Impact

Successful exploitation could result in Cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, allowing an attacker to execute unauthorized code within the context of affected web pages. This can compromise data integrity and confidentiality by injecting malicious content. The vulnerability requires low privileges and no user interaction but has a high attack complexity. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Summary

The vulnerability (CVE-2024-53382) affects the prism-autoloader plugin within the Prism library used by Red Hat Developer Hub 1.9.0. The plugin uses document.currentScript as the base URL for dynamically loading dependencies, which can be exploited via DOM Clobbering. This allows an attacker to inject scriptless HTML elements, such as an img tag with a controlled name attribute, leading to Cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks on web pages embedding Prism. The issue is categorized under CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) and CWE-1286. Red Hat has not yet released a patch or fix for this vulnerability.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (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 16 Aug 2026, 17:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94, CWE-1286

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats