Skip to content

Home Assistant has Stored XSS vulnerability in Energy dashboard from Energy Entity Name

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 14, 2025 in home-assistant/core • Updated Oct 14, 2025

Package

pip homeassistant (pip)

Affected versions

>= 2025.1.0, <= 2025.10.1

Patched versions

2025.10.2

Description

Summary

An authenticated party can add a malicious name to the Energy entity, allowing for Cross-Site Scripting attacks against anyone who can see the Energy dashboard, when they hover over any information point (The blue bar in the picture below)
1_cens

An alternative, and more impactful scenario, is that the entity gets a malicious name from the provider of the Entity (in this case the energy provider: Tibber), and gets exploited that way, through the default name.

Details

The incriminating entity in my scenario is from the Tibber integration, as shown in the screenshot below:
2_cens

The exploit should be possible regardless of the Energy integration, as the user can name the entity themselves and as such pick a malicious name. The default name given by the Energy integration can also be taken directly from their system, and be vulnerable that way. The execution happens within the energy dashboard, when hovering over a data point:

image

Update found after issue was reported:
I found that the issue presents itself for any entity with a html-entity in the name, which is included and rendered in the graph view. Following is an example for a speaker:
11_cens

Source code

The relevant source code is added in a comment, but copy pasted here as well:

The offending line of code rendering the payload appears to be:
https://github.com/home-assistant/frontend/blob/c13a80ce5e7ae39f0262444e2b6295a074a96732/src/panels/lovelace/cards/energy/hui-energy-devices-graph-card.ts#L110
Where the parameter marked with bold and italic is the vulnerable value:
return `${title}${params.marker} ${params.seriesName}: ${value}`;

From the trace below, we can see that the only change done to the friendly_name of an entity is replacing underscores with spaces (computeObjectId(entityId).replace(//g, " ")_).
We can also determine that any power entity will have it's name used if there is one, and fall back to the friendly name if it cannot find one:

data.push({
  id: `${compare ? "compare-" : ""}${statId}-${type}`,
  type: "bar",
  cursor: "default",
  name:
    type in labels
      ? labels[type]
      : getStatisticLabel(
          this.hass,
          statId,
          statisticsMetaData[statId]
        ),

(https://github.com/home-assistant/frontend/blob/c13a80ce5e7ae39f0262444e2b6295a074a96732/src/panels/lovelace/cards/energy/hui-energy-usage-graph-card.ts#L467-L478)

The value comes from:

  1. https://github.com/home-assistant/frontend/blob/c13a80ce5e7ae39f0262444e2b6295a074a96732/src/panels/lovelace/cards/energy/hui-energy-usage-graph-card.ts#L467-L478
    (This is the relevant call: getStatisticLabel(this.hass, statId, statisticsMetaData[statId];)

  2. getStatisticLabel is defined here: https://github.com/home-assistant/frontend/blob/c13a80ce5e7ae39f0262444e2b6295a074a96732/src/data/recorder.ts#L329-L339 (This is the relevant call: computeStateName(entity);)

  3. computeStateName is defined here: https://github.com/home-assistant/frontend/blob/c13a80ce5e7ae39f0262444e2b6295a074a96732/src/common/entity/compute_state_name.ts

PoC

  1. Set up a new energy provider with a price sensor.
  2. Give the price sensor a malicious name

4_cens

5_cens

  1. Configure the energy dashboard to get data from the price sensor

image

7_cens

8_cens

  1. Look at the data and hover the data point for code to execute. (You may have to trigger data ingestion or add a false data point to be able to hover a data point when testing, you need at least one datapoint to trigger the vulnerability)

9_cens

Impact

It is possible to exploit this over the internet, by using an energy provider, like Tibber, with a malicious name, and relying on the default naming in Home Assistant being used. This is actually how I found this bug:
10_cens

This means that a malicious employee or someone with access to your electricity provider can attack your Home Assistant instance from your electricity provider. I am unsure if you consider this a sanitization and escaping issue in the respective integrations or not, but I believe a central fix in the form of fixing the Energy Dashboard is more appropriate, rather than to rely on every integration properly handling user input.

References

@bramkragten bramkragten published to home-assistant/core Oct 14, 2025
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Oct 14, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 14, 2025
Reviewed Oct 14, 2025
Last updated Oct 14, 2025

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 Low
User interaction None
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:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

EPSS score

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-2025-62172

GHSA ID

GHSA-mq77-rv97-285m

Source code

Credits

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