GHSA-23q2-54qv-rq5x CVE-2026-49274

Kirby: `pages.access` permission is not checked in the pages picker for parent pages

Medium Packagist

Severity: 0.0 / 10; Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.48%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix: 4.9.4; Upgrade getkirby/cms to this version or later

Description

TL;DR

This vulnerability affects all Kirby sites that use the pages field and where users of a particular role have no permission to access pages (pages.access permission is disabled). This can be due to configuration in the user blueprint(s), options in the model blueprint(s), or a combination of both settings.

It was possible to confirm the existence of arbitrary pages and to retrieve the value of the title field of the pages found.

The vulnerability can only be exploited by authenticated users. Write actions are not affected by this vulnerability.

Introduction

Missing authorization allows authenticated users to perform actions they are not intended to have access to.

The effects of missing authorization can include unauthorized access to sensitive information as well as unauthorized changes to content or system information.

Affected components

Kirby's user permissions control which user role is allowed to perform specific actions on content models in the CMS. These permissions are defined for each role in the user blueprint (site/blueprints/users/...). It is also possible to customize the permissions for each target model in the model blueprints (such as in site/blueprints/pages/...) using the options feature. The permissions and options together control the authorization of user actions.

Kirby provides the pages.access and pages.list permissions (among others). The list permission controls whether affected models appear in lists throughout the Panel and REST API. The access permission has the same effect but also disables direct access to the affected models.

This vulnerability affects the backend logic for the page picker that is used in the pages field to select pages. The picker is opened based on a user-provided parent page or the site model.

Impact

In affected releases, the backend logic did not validate that the user-provided parent page or site was accessible to the current user. This allowed authenticated attackers with knowledge of the full path to an existing page to confirm the existence of a particular page and to retrieve the value of the title field of that page. This could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information.

Patches

The problem has been patched in Kirby 4.9.4 and Kirby 5.4.4. Please update to one of these or a later version to fix the vulnerability.

In all of the mentioned releases, we have added a check verifying that the requested parent page or site is accessible to the current user before returning the picker data.

Affected versions

Packagist

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
getkirby/cms	`< 4.9.4`	`4.9.4`
getkirby/cms	`>= 5.0.0-alpha.1, < 5.4.4`	`5.4.4`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

getkirby/cms Packagist → `4.9.4`

composer

composer require getkirby/cms:^4.9.4

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Attack requirements: None
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system): Low
Integrity (vulnerable system): None
Availability (vulnerable system): None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems): None
Integrity (subsequent systems): None
Availability (subsequent systems): None

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Packages

github.com/getkirby/kirby

Timeline

Jun 18, 2026 Published
Oct 25, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-9vx2-j98c-p72w Kirby: Access to image files and limited access to JSON files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling	High	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-6j4c-mgqr-qv76 Kirby: Access to image files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling	Medium	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-67mx-6wf2-92xp Kirby: File upload permissions are not checked during processing of chunk data	High	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-rf2p-vh74-7vvh Kirby: System path exposure from error messages in the REST API	Medium	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-r3w8-2c5r-h9j9 Kirby: `pages.access` permission is not checked in the `site/find` REST API route	High	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-89cp-7p28-jffg Kirby: Access to files of top-level drafts is not protected by permissions	Medium	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-whxw-24jc-cwmv Kirby: External Initialization of the Panel on reverse proxy setups with the `Forwarded` header	Critical	Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-wr9h-4r83-f4v6 Kirby: Cross-site scripting (XSS) from incomplete HTML/XML sanitization in `Dom::sanitize()`	High	Also affects getkirby/cms

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor