GHSA-35f3-pg38-486f CVE-2026-52773
YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped Archived-Revision `time` Parameter in `handlers/page/show.php`
- Severity
- 6.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.59%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.25% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-80 Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS)
- Fix
4.6.6- Upgrade yeswiki/yeswiki to this version or later
Description
Summary
YesWiki's archived-revision view reflects the time GET parameter into a hidden HTML input in handlers/page/show.php without escaping. Because MySQL coerces malformed DATETIME strings, an attacker can append HTML or JavaScript to a valid archived revision timestamp, still load that archived revision, and execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser.
The vulnerable form is only rendered when the victim can both read and edit the target page. In restricted deployments this requires a victim with read and write access to that page. On a default doryphore 4.6.5 install, public pages such as PagePrincipale were editable anonymously during validation, so the issue can also affect unauthenticated visitors in that configuration.
Details
The request routing path uses the user-controlled time parameter to load a specific page revision. In includes/YesWiki.php around Run() line 1223, the request is routed through:
$this->SetPage($this->LoadPage($tag, isset($_REQUEST['time']) ? $_REQUEST['time'] : ''));
LoadPage() delegates to PageManager::getOne() in includes/services/PageManager.php around line 75, which builds a SQL predicate directly from the supplied revision time:
$timeQuery = $time ? "time = '{$this->dbService->escape($time)}'" : "latest = 'Y'";
If the loaded page is an archived revision (latest == 'N') and the current user has write access, handlers/page/show.php around lines 43-49 renders an edit form for that archived revision and copies $_GET['time'] into a hidden input without htmlspecialchars():
$time = isset($_GET['time']) ? $_GET['time'] : '';
echo $this->FormOpen(testUrlInIframe() ? 'editiframe' : 'edit', '', 'get');
<input type="hidden" name="time" value="<?php echo $time; ?>" />
That sink is reachable only when all of the following are true:
- The target page has at least one archived revision.
- The victim can
readthe target page. - The victim can
writethe target page, because the archived revision edit form is rendered only inside theif ($this->HasAccess('write'))branch.
In practice, the payload must begin with a real archived revision timestamp. A completely invalid time value does not reach the archived branch because YesWiki only updates the current page object when the revision lookup returns a non-empty row.
During local validation on the official doryphore 4.6.5 package, the exploit worked because MySQL accepted a malformed timestamp string as matching an existing archived revision row. For example, the following expression was coerced to the stored revision time:
CAST(CONCAT('2026-05-24 04:30:00', CHAR(34), CHAR(62), CHAR(60), 'script', CHAR(62), 'alert(1)', CHAR(60), '/script', CHAR(62)) AS DATETIME)
and the corresponding query predicate still matched the archived row:
WHERE time = '2026-05-24 04:30:00"><script>alert(1)</script>'
This means a payload can begin with a valid archived revision timestamp, still resolve to the archived revision, and then be reflected unescaped into the hidden HTML field.
For comparison, tools/bazar/handlers/page/show__.php around lines 13-14 escapes the same time value with htmlspecialchars(), which shows that the core handler's behavior is inconsistent and unsafe.
This issue maps to CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting').
PoC
- Set up a vulnerable YesWiki instance. This was validated locally on the official
doryphore 4.6.5release. - Use a target page that has at least one archived revision. Any page with revision history is sufficient.
- Confirm the victim has the rights needed to reach the vulnerable sink:
- The victim must have
readaccess to the page. - The victim must have
writeaccess to the page. - On the default validation install, these rights were available anonymously on public pages such as
PagePrincipale, so no login was required in that configuration.
- The victim must have
- Identify the timestamp of an archived revision. In the validated setup, an archived
PagePrincipalerevision existed at2026-05-24 04:30:00. - Send the victim a crafted URL that starts with that valid archived revision timestamp and then appends an attribute-breaking payload:
http://127.0.0.1:8085/PagePrincipale?time=2026-05-24%2004:30:00%22%3E%3Cscript%3Ealert(1)%3C/script%3E%3Cinput%20value=%22
- Open the URL in a browser as a victim who has the required
readandwriterights. - Observe that YesWiki still loads the archived revision view and displays the archived-revision warning block, proving the malformed
timevalue matched the stored archived revision. - Inspect the returned HTML. The response contains the injected payload inside the hidden form field:
<input type="hidden" name="time" value="2026-05-24 04:30:00"><script>alert(1)</script><input value="" />
- The browser executes the injected JavaScript in the YesWiki origin. A simple payload such as
alert(1)demonstrates code execution; a real payload could read browser-accessible data or perform actions in the victim's session.
<img width="1600" height="829" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d0b85a7c-2213-4459-908c-969934f06358" />
Impact
This is a reflected XSS vulnerability in the archived-revision workflow.
The practical access model is:
- The attacker only needs to send a crafted link.
- The victim must have
readandwriteaccess to the target page. - The target page must have at least one archived revision.
- On deployments where anonymous visitors can edit public pages, the issue can be exploited against unauthenticated visitors as well.
An attacker may be able to:
- Execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser.
- Steal browser-accessible sensitive data.
- Perform actions as the victim inside YesWiki.
- Abuse the trusted YesWiki origin for phishing, UI redressing, or follow-on attacks.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| yeswiki/yeswiki | >= 4.1.0, < 4.6.6 |
4.6.6 |
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.
yeswiki/yeswiki Packagist → 4.6.6
- composer
composer require yeswiki/yeswiki:^4.6.6
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-80: Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to a downstream component that processes web pages.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, 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. We often encounter 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.
- 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.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9369-69wj-7m2f YesWiki Vulnerable to Authenticated PHP Object Injection in BazarImportAction via unserialize | Critical | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-4pf7-cc4r-g63h YesWiki has Authenticated SQL Injection via ReactionManager | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-r5xw-gcgw-hwp5 YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped `id` Parameter in Bazar Widget HTML Attributes | Medium | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-xc7j-3g8q-9vh4 YesWiki has stored XSS in Bazar form-field templates via unescaped field.label / field.hint (|raw('html')) | Medium | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-8f2v-2qhj-gfwg YesWiki: Second-Order SQL Injection in Page Delete API via Unescaped Page Tag (`ApiController::deletePage`) | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-qg78-vmvc-fhjw YesWiki: SQL Injection possible through public Bazar entry-listing APIs via numeric `query`/`queries` filters | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-vw42-752g-5mrp YesWiki has Unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery via ActivityPub `Signature.keyId` | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-mv28-wj57-f57g YesWiki Vulnerable to Unauthenticated ActivityPub Signature-Verification Bypass via `!openssl_verify(...)` accepting `int(-1)` | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
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