How CVEs affect documentation production, from static sites to PDFs

Cybersecurity breaches have been in the news recently, and with them a term that might be unfamiliar to you: CVE.

CVE stands for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures. It is a publicly available, standardised list of known information-security vulnerabilities and software flaws.

A vulnerability can affect the tools Technical Authors use to preview a static site, generate a PDF, or publish either format.

If there’s a CVE ID, the writing team has to work out whether the vulnerable code runs during the build or in the reader’s browser. Depending on the answer, publishing might have to wait.

This means anyone involved in creating user documentation should find out which version of the tool runs, where it runs, and what it can access.

Where the vulnerable code runs matters

A documentation site might use a static site generator, a theme, a Markdown parser, and several plugins. The publishing process might also use a container image and an automated job that uploads the finished site. Each of those tools can bring in packages of its own. The first time a Technical Author sees one of those package names might be in a vulnerability alert. Dependency tools can find some of these indirect dependencies by reading files that record the exact versions installed.

Start by finding out where the affected version runs and what it can access.

• On the author’s computer.
  A preview server might expose draft content if it listens on the network.
• During the build.
  A Markdown parser might process files from external contributors.
• On the published site.
  A theme might ship a vulnerable JavaScript library to readers’ browsers.

Static site generators can be affected

A static site generator turns source files into pages before readers visit them. During that build, it might run a Markdown parser, load a theme, fetch remote resources, or generate JavaScript for the browser. A vulnerability can affect the build itself or the files it produces.

For example, Hugo’s release notes describe fixes for CVE-2026-94448 and CVE-2026-97030, which could cause inline JavaScript to be escaped incorrectly. The generator runs during the build, but the resulting JavaScript goes into the published pages. If a vulnerability affects the generated files, updating the tool is only part of the job. The team also needs to identify which published versions to rebuild and deploy.

An alert can also affect a local preview server or the automated job that publishes the site. In March 2025, a compromise of the tj-actions/changed-files GitHub Action caused some workflows to expose secrets in their logs. A documentation team might use an action like this to decide which guides to rebuild. In that case, the pages could look exactly as expected while the build exposed a publishing credential.

PDF production has its own dependencies

A Technical Author might export a PDF from an authoring tool, print HTML to PDF using a browser, or run a converter in an automated build. A separate tool might then compress the file or create thumbnails. Each step has its own software and version.

For example, Ghostscript can interpret and render PDFs and PostScript. Its maintainers describe CVE-2023-46751 as a vulnerability that could allow command execution. A team that uses Ghostscript to process files needs to check the version on the machine that runs that step. If conversion happens on a build server, updating the author’s desktop software leaves the server’s copy in use.

The response depends on where the vulnerability sits.

A security update can change the published output

Suppose a fix for a vulnerable Markdown parser comes through an upgrade to the site generator. The build passes, but the new version generates different links for section headings. Links from the product UI, support tickets, and other guides can now break even though the pages still look right.

Build a preview from the same source before and after the upgrade. Try links into individual sections. Check a few pages that use tabs, reusable snippets, or version selectors. If the same source also produces a PDF or an offline help package, test those outputs too. Each format can depend on a different renderer.

Give the work an owner before the next release

You need to have the roles and responsibilities sorted out:

• The Security team can assess the exposure.
• The person who maintains the build can update the dependency and produce a preview.
• The documentation team can check whether the resulting site or PDF still works for readers.

They should agree who can pause publishing and who can resume it once the checks are complete.

Take one guide your team publishes regularly and trace it from source file to live page or downloadable PDF. At each step, record the tool version, where it runs, and who can update it. Pick a few pages or links to test after an upgrade. The next time an alert names an unfamiliar package, you’ll have a way to find where it fits and what needs checking.

More information

CVE Program guidance

Ghostscript security advisories

Hugo release notes

GitHub advisory for CVE-2025-30066

GitHub’s guide to dependency detection

AI disclosure: We used ChatGPT during the initial drafting and proofreading stages of this post.