CVE-2024-41953
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedZitadel is an open source identity management system. ZITADEL uses HTML for emails and renders certain information such as usernames dynamically. That information can be entered by users or administrators. Due to a missing output sanitization, these emails could include malicious code. This may potentially lead to a threat where an attacker, without privileges, could send out altered notifications that are part of the registration processes. An attacker could create a malicious link, where the injected code would be rendered as part of the email. On the user's detail page, the username was also not sanitized and would also render HTML, giving an attacker the same vulnerability. While it was possible to inject HTML including javascript, the execution of such scripts would be prevented by most email clients and the Content Security Policy in Console UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.58.1, 2.57.1, 2.56.2, 2.55.5, 2.54.8 2.53.9, and 2.52.3.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisUntrusted input is placed into a web page without being neutralised, so an attacker's markup or script executes in another user's browser. That can hijack sessions, capture keystrokes, or silently perform actions as the victim. Fixing it properly means context-aware output encoding everywhere data meets HTML, backed by a content-security policy as a second line of defence.
General guidance for the cross-site scripting (xss) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 2.52.0, < 2.52.3>= 2.53.0, < 2.53.9>= 2.54.0, < 2.54.8>= 2.55.0, < 2.55.5>= 2.56.0, < 2.56.2= 2.57.0= 2.58.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped2.52.32.53.92.54.8
2.58.1 (or 2.57.1, 2.56.2, 2.55.5, 2.54.8, 2.53.9, or 2.52.3 depending on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running Zitadel version using `zitadel version` or your deployment configuration
- 2. Determine which version branch you are currently on (2.52.x, 2.53.x, 2.54.x, or 2.55.x)
- 3. Plan upgrade to the corresponding fixed version: if on 2.52.x upgrade to 2.52.3; if on 2.53.x upgrade to 2.53.9; if on 2.54.x upgrade to 2.54.8; if on 2.55.x upgrade to 2.55.5
- 4. Create a backup of your Zitadel database and configuration files
- 5. Stop the Zitadel service
- 6. Upgrade Zitadel by replacing the binary or container image with the fixed version
- 7. Start the Zitadel service and verify it is running
- 8. Verify the fix by testing that user inputs like usernames are properly sanitized in emails and the console UI
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-41953 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-41953 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data