Skip to content

GHSA-3v8v-4wg6-r7qh CVE-2026-47343

TYPO3 CMS: Destructive Actions on File Mount Folders

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.24%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 14.90% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
10.4.57
Upgrade typo3/cms-core to this version or later

Description

Problem

Non-privileged backend users with file mount access were able to perform write operations (move, delete, rename) on folders representing the root of an active file mount due to missing authorization restrictions.

Solution

Update to TYPO3 versions 10.4.57 ELTS, 11.5.51 ELTS, 12.4.46 ELTS, 13.4.31 LTS, 14.3.3 LTS that fix the problem described.

Credits

TYPO3 CMS thanks Arne Uplegger for reporting this issue, and TYPO3 security team member Elias Häußler for fixing it.

Resources

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
typo3/cms-core
< 10.4.57
10.4.57
typo3/cms-core
>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.51
11.5.51
typo3/cms-core
>= 12.0.0, < 12.4.46
12.4.46
typo3/cms-core
>= 13.0.0, < 13.4.31
13.4.31
typo3/cms-core
>= 14.0.0, < 14.3.3
14.3.3

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.

typo3/cms-core Packagist → 10.4.57

composer
composer require typo3/cms-core:^10.4.57

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/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)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-68jx-f42c-7599
TYPO3 CMS - Broken Access Control in Backend and Install Tool
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-chm7-4vch-h8vr
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its Media Module
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jh32-v29g-68pq
TYPO3 CMS has Privilege Escalation & SQL Injection in its Form Framework
High Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-c78m-c52x-jgwp
TYPO3 CMS has Insecure Deserialization via Core API
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jf56-v8jc-jcc5
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its File Abstraction Layer
Low Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-2j54-93q2-3hjq
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in Backend API
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-q93m-25xv-94hh
TYPO3 CMS: Broken Access Control in Media Module
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-qcmw-6rm2-5x78
TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its DataHandler
Medium Also affects typo3/cms-core
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