CVE
Hugo Blog missing authentication on AI proxy endpoints
Only affects lanshi17 hugo_blog deployed with the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup, OPENAI_API_KEY set server-side, and /api/* exposed publicly. No fixed version is listed.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- See vendor advisory
- Who is exposed
- Default setups
Do first: Check every install: default setups are affected.
- Published
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 35/100 · provisional
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Default setups
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
Hugo Blog, a tech blog site, has an AI assistant proxy with three HTTP endpoints that do not check for authentication. An attacker can reach them remotely, without logging in, and use them to send requests billed to the operator's server-side AI API key, which can drain quota and cost money or make the service unavailable.
Original description
Hugo Blog is a tech blog site. In commit 744ca15 and prior, the AI assistant proxy exposes three HTTP endpoints (POST /api/blog-assistant, POST /api/blog-search-embedding, POST /api/blog-search-rerank) without any authentication check. When deployed following the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup, any unauthenticated remote attacker can send arbitrary requests that the proxy forwards to the upstream LLM/embedding/rerank API using the operator's server-side API key (OPENAI_API_KEY / AI_SEARCH_API_KEY). This enables unlimited quota consumption, cost exhaustion, and potential service unavailability for the operator. At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.
Who should check
Operators of Hugo Blog (lanshi17/hugo_blog) who deploy the AI assistant proxy behind the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup with OPENAI_API_KEY or AI_SEARCH_API_KEY.
“When deployed following the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup”
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure22/25Default setups, reachable over the network without a login
- Reach?/20Unknown. No tracked technology or package matched
- Severity8.2/10CVSS 8.2
- No patch5/5No fixed version listed; see vendor advisory
What would change the score
- Would score about 75 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 70 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
What to do
Check every install: default setups are affected.
Workaround: Limit exposure by restricting public access to /api/* in the Nginx reverse-proxy setup, since that public exposure is the stated condition. The checked facts name no other workaround.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by CVE-2026-68905 (Hugo Blog: Unauthenticated AI Proxy Allows Abuse of Server-Side API Key), using the cve.now data below.
Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only.
What cve.now has for CVE-2026-68905 (entry last updated 2026-11-13):
Affected:
- lanshi17 hugo_blog: version range not reported
Fixed versions: none listed yet.
Conditions (all must be true for the bug to be hit):
- Proxy deployed following the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup with OPENAI_API_KEY set server-side and /api/* exposed publicly (source: https://github.com/lanshi17/hugo_blog/security/advisories/GHSA-pj75-r769-qjv2)
Setup: the bug is reachable in a default setup; no special feature or setting is needed.
Attacker needs: network access, no login, no user action.
CISA KEV: CVE-2026-68905 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for CVE-2026-68905 only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one.
How to check:
- Installed software: check what is actually running, not what a repo declares. Read the version from each host, container image and Kubernetes node (the binary's version output, the OS package database, image layers), and check whether the conditions above hold there. Distribution packages may carry a backported fix under an older version number; confirm against the distribution's own advisory.
Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one:
- https://github.com/lanshi17/hugo_blog/security/advisories/GHSA-pj75-r769-qjv2
Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing.
Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action.
Entry: https://cve.now/CVE-2026-68905
For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example execute with name cve.get and arguments {"id": "CVE-2026-68905"}.Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
Affected versions
- lanshi17 hugo_blog
Version range not reported
Evidence 3
Vendor advisory · 1
Establishes: Affected and fixed versions.
- Advisory
CVE record · 2
Establishes: The identifier and description.
- Record
- Record
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-68905
Is CVE-2026-68905 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
What does this mean?
Unauthenticated remote users can make the server use the operator's server-side API key to consume LLM, embedding and rerank quota. This can cause cost exhaustion and possible unavailability of the AI assistant.Source: github.com
Am I affected, and how do I check?
The condition is a proxy deployed with the documented Nginx reverse-proxy setup, OPENAI_API_KEY set server-side, and /api/* exposed publicly. A reader can check whether their Nginx configuration exposes /api/* publicly and whether OPENAI_API_KEY is set on the server. No version range is listed.Source: github.com
How do I fix CVE-2026-68905?
No fixed version or vendor patch identifiers are listed in the checked facts, so no upgrade target is named here. Check the advisory for an update.Source: github.com
What if there's no patch?
Limit exposure by restricting public access to /api/* in the Nginx reverse-proxy setup, since that public exposure is the stated condition. The checked facts name no other workaround.Source: github.com