Skip to content

GHSA-4j78-4xrm-cr2f CVE-2026-21896

Kirby is missing permission checks in the content changes API

Medium Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.23%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 13.88% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
5.2.2
Upgrade getkirby/cms to this version or later

Description

TL;DR

This vulnerability affects all Kirby sites where user permissions are configured to prevent specific role(s) from performing write actions, specifically by disabling the update permission with the intent to prevent modifications to site content.

If developers haven't configured any user permissions that deviate from the default of allowing all actions, their site is not affected.


Introduction

Kirby allows to restrict the permissions of specific user roles. Users of that role can only perform permitted actions.

Permissions for updating content have already existed and could be configured for each model type, but were not enforced by Kirby's API backend code during operations to the changes version.

The changes version is the content version that contains unsaved changes of existing models (pages, users, files or the site).

Impact

The missing permission checks allowed attackers with Panel access to create or discard a changes version or update the content fields in an existing changes version. All of these actions could affect arbitrary models.

This could cause the following impact:

  • Attackers could maliciously create changes versions for all models of the site, creating editing locks that would prevent other authenticated users from making content changes until those locks were cleared.
  • Attackers could update the content in a malicious way, for example by adding defamatory or spam content or by including malicious links or scripts. While this updated content would not immediately be published to the site, an inattentive editor with update permissions could inadvertently publish these changes in the belief that an authorized user has made them.
  • Attackers could discard extensive changes, making editors lose their content work.

Patches

The problem has been patched in Kirby 5.2.2. Please update to this or a later version to fix the vulnerability.

In the mentioned release, we have added checks for the model update permissions that ensure that users without this permission cannot create, edit or discard the changes version of the respective model.

A future Kirby release will add separate edit and save permissions that will make it possible to control write actions to model content more granularly.

Credits

Thanks to Lukas Kleinschmidt (@lukaskleinschmidt) for responsibly reporting the identified issue.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getkirby/cms
>= 5.0.0, < 5.2.2
5.2.2

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 → 5.2.2

composer
composer require getkirby/cms:^5.2.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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-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