GHSA-3mv2-vmwh-rwfx CVE-2026-45610
AVideo: 2FA toggle endpoint has no CSRF protection, letting an attacker page silently disable a logged-in victim's 2FA
- Severity
- 5.7 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.11%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 1.26% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
Type: Cross-site request forgery on the 2FA toggle. plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php accepts POST type=set2FA value=false, calls LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), false) on the session-authenticated user, and returns. There is no forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest() call, no isTokenValid() check, no X-CSRF-Token/SameSite enforcement, and no re-authentication step. A cross-origin page that the victim visits while logged into the AVideo dashboard issues the POST via a hidden form (or fetch without credentials:"omit") and disables the victim's 2FA in one request. The next phishing/credential-stuffing attempt against that account no longer needs the second factor.
File: plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php, lines 1-37.
Root cause: the developer relied on the User::isLogged() check at line 9 as the only auth, then dispatched directly into LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), $value=='true'). Other AVideo state-changing endpoints in the same codebase (videoUpdateUsage.json.php, videoStatus.json.php, videoRotate.json.php, etc.) call forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest('<name>') to compare Origin/Referer against the AVideo domain; this endpoint simply omits the call. The session cookie carries the user's identity on every cross-origin POST, so any attacker page can speak for the logged-in user on this endpoint.
Affected Code
File: plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php, lines 1-37.
<?php
require_once '../../videos/configuration.php';
_session_write_close();
header('Content-Type: application/json');
$obj = new stdClass();
$obj->error = true;
$obj->msg = "";
if (!User::isLogged()) {
$obj->msg = "Not logged";
die(json_encode($obj));
}
if (empty($_POST['type'])) {
$obj->msg = "Type is empty";
die(json_encode($obj));
}
if (!isset($_POST['value'])) {
$obj->msg = "value is empty";
die(json_encode($obj));
}
$cu = AVideoPlugin::loadPluginIfEnabled('LoginControl');
if (empty($cu)) {
$obj->msg = "Plugin not enabled";
die(json_encode($obj));
}
$obj->error = false;
switch ($_POST['type']) {
case 'set2FA':
LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), $_POST['value']=="true" ? true : false); // <-- BUG: no CSRF gate, no re-auth
break;
}
die(json_encode($obj));
Why it's wrong: disabling a victim's second factor is exactly the kind of state change the AVideo CSRF helper forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest() exists to protect. Compare with objects/comments_like.json.php:18 (forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest('comments_like')) — comments-likes get CSRF protection, but the 2FA toggle does not. Beyond CSRF, security-sensitive toggles like 2FA-disable conventionally also require either the current 2FA code or a password re-prompt: a malicious browser extension, an XSS that lands in any AVideo subdomain, or a compromised tab can otherwise flip the bit silently. None of those mitigations exist here.
Exploit Chain
- Attacker hosts
https://attacker.example/avideo-2fa-off.htmlcontaining:
State: page is live and indexable.<form id="f" action="https://avideo.example/plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php" method="POST"> <input type="hidden" name="type" value="set2FA"> <input type="hidden" name="value" value="false"> </form> <script>document.getElementById('f').submit();</script> - Attacker delivers the page to a victim who is logged in to
avideo.example(open redirect on a trusted partner, ad campaign, IM phishing link, encyclopedic-looking forum post). The victim's browser opens the page; the form auto-submits to AVideo. State: cross-origin POST hitsset.json.phpwith the victim's session cookie attached (the cookie'sSameSiteattribute is set toLax/Noneby AVideo's defaults so the cross-origin POST succeeds for top-level navigations). set.json.php:9confirmsUser::isLogged()(true, victim's session is valid). Lines 13-19 seetype=set2FA,value=false. Line 30-32 callsLoginControl::setUser2FA(victim_user_id, false)and persists the change. State: victim's 2FA is now disabled inusers.externalOptions.LoginControl.is2FAEnabled.- Victim sees a generic "operation completed" JSON response in a redirected browser tab (or no visible feedback at all if the form lands in an
iframe). State: victim notices nothing unusual. - Attacker (in a separate session) attempts credential stuffing or password-spray against
avideo.example/objects/login.json.php. Without the second factor, any one of: a previously leaked password, a successful credential-stuffing match, or a spear-phishing-collected password completes the login. State: attacker holds full session for victim's account. - Final state: the second factor that the victim explicitly enabled was silently disabled across the wire by visiting an attacker-hosted page. The whole chain takes one HTTP POST and zero clicks beyond the initial visit.
Security Impact
Severity: sec-moderate. CVSS 6.5: network attack, low complexity, low privileges (the attacker themselves are unauthenticated; the victim must be a logged-in AVideo user; this is captured by PR:L because the action's effect requires the victim's session), user interaction required (visit attacker page), scope unchanged, no confidentiality directly, high integrity (the victim's 2FA configuration is silently corrupted), no availability claim.
Attacker capability: with one cross-origin POST, the attacker turns a victim's 2FA-protected account into a plain password-only account. Combined with any password leak, credential-stuffing match, or successful phishing of the password, the account is fully compromised. The change is permanent until the victim notices and re-enables 2FA, and AVideo does not raise an audit-log event when 2FA is disabled (see LoginControl::setUser2FA — it simply writes the boolean), so detection is unlikely.
Preconditions: AVideo deployment with the LoginControl plugin enabled (the plugin shipping the 2FA feature); the victim is logged in to AVideo at the moment they visit the attacker page; the AVideo session cookie does not have SameSite=Strict (the deployment default is SameSite=Lax per objects/phpsessionid.json.php:53, which still allows cross-origin top-level POSTs from a form auto-submit).
Differential: source-inspection-verified. set.json.php does not contain forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest, isTokenValid, verifyToken, or any equivalent string; the entire body of the file is reproduced above. With the suggested fix below, the same cross-origin POST returns a 403 with Invalid Request and the setUser2FA call never fires.
Suggested Fix
Add the same CSRF gate every other state-changing endpoint in this codebase uses, and require the current 2FA code (or a password re-prompt) when the user is disabling the second factor.
--- a/plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php
+++ b/plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
if (!User::isLogged()) {
$obj->msg = "Not logged";
die(json_encode($obj));
}
+forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest('LoginControl-set');
+
if (empty($_POST['type'])) {
$obj->msg = "Type is empty";
die(json_encode($obj));
@@ -28,7 +30,15 @@
$obj->error = false;
switch ($_POST['type']) {
case 'set2FA':
- LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), $_POST['value']=="true" ? true : false);
+ $newValue = ($_POST['value'] == 'true');
+ // Require the current 2FA code (or a password re-prompt) when DISABLING 2FA;
+ // turning it on is fine, turning it off needs a step-up.
+ if (!$newValue && !LoginControl::confirmStepUpForCurrentUser($_POST['confirm'] ?? '')) {
+ $obj->error = true;
+ $obj->msg = __('Re-authentication required to disable 2FA');
+ die(json_encode($obj));
+ }
+ LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), $newValue);
break;
}
Defence-in-depth: the AVideo session cookie should be issued with SameSite=Strict for the management dashboard's first-party POSTs; the public read-only player can keep a separate SameSite=Lax cookie. Audit-log every 2FA-disable event with the source IP and user agent so an unexpected disable is visible to the operator.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| WWBN/AVideo | <= 29.0 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability. Identify all potential communication channels, or other means of interaction with the software, to ensure that all channels are appropriately protected, including those channels that are assumed to be accessible only by authorized parties. Developers sometimes perform authentication at the primary channel, but open up a secondary channel that is assumed to be private. For example, a login mechanism may be listening on one network port, but after successful authentication, it may open up a second port where it waits for the connection, but avoids authentication because it assumes that only the authenticated party will connect to the port. In general, if the software or protocol allows a single session or user state to persist across multiple connections or channels, authentication and appropriate credential management need to be used throughout.
- 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: Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment. These capabilities may avoid common weaknesses that are unique to authentication; support automatic auditing and tracking; and make it easier to provide a clear separation between authentication tasks and authorization tasks. In environments such as the World Wide Web, the line between authentication and authorization is sometimes blurred. If custom authentication routines are required instead of those provided by the server, then these routines must be applied to every single page, since these pages could be requested directly.
- 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 libraries with authentication capabilities such as OpenSSL or the ESAPI Authenticator [REF-45].
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to require strong authentication for users who should be allowed to access the data [REF-1297] [REF-1298] [REF-1302].
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7cqp-7cfv-6c3q AVideo Meet plugin: anonymous-to-admin stored XSS via unescaped participant User-Agent in getMeetInfo.json.php Participants panel | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-wc3f-xc32-435f AVideo has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33482: sanitizeFFmpegCommand still allows a single '&' (background operator), giving OS command execution at the same execAsync sh -c sink | High | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-wf69-r4mx-43rr AVideo Vulnerable to Unauthenticated .env File Exposure via Official Docker Compose Configuration | High | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-8j8m-p79x-g4jm AVideo's Privilege Escalation via Unguarded Permission Parameters in signUp API Allows Self-Granting Upload/Stream/Meet Permissions | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-8whc-2wmv-ww35 WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Stored DOM Cross-Site Scripting via Per-Client Metadata Broadcast in YPTSocket Plugin | Critical | Also affects WWBN/AVideo |
| GHSA-66q5-cj5g-wrfx WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section | Medium | Also affects WWBN/AVideo |
| GHSA-hgjh-6wj8-gcgf WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS via $_GET['search'] in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Pagination | Medium | Also affects WWBN/AVideo |
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