Skip to content

GHSA-4pvx-fwjj-8gpc BIT-ghost-2026-104412 BIT-ghost-2026-105678 CVE-2026-104412 CVE-2026-105678

Ghost: Editors Could Promote Staff Users to Their Own Role

Medium npm
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.20%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.37% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
6.64.0
Upgrade ghost to this version or later

Description

Impact

Staff users with the Editor or Super Editor role were able to assign their own role to Author and Contributor users, despite not having permission to assign that role.

Vulnerable versions

This vulnerability is present in Ghost from v0.5.0 up to v6.64.0.

Patches

v6.64.0 contains a fix for this issue.

How to update

For self-hosters using Docker, find Docker's official Ghost image here. Updating a Docker-based Ghost instance is documented here.

If your Ghost is a Ghost-CLI install see our documentation on updating it to the latest version here.

References

Ghost thanks SecBuddyF of Tencent KeenLab, Santosh Kumar Puppala, Pedro Pinho, and Nhat Anh Vu for disclosing this vulnerability responsibly.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email us at security@ghost.org.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ghost
>= 0.5.0, < 6.64.0
6.64.0

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.

ghost npm → 6.64.0

npm
npm install ghost@6.64.0
yarn
yarn add ghost@6.64.0
pnpm
pnpm add ghost@6.64.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 5.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 4.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

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-x3mg-q38v-m562
Ghost: Authorization Issue Allowed Author Role to Delete any Post
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-8575-cr6v-7jh4
Ghost: Stored XSS via SVG Uploads Bypassing Sanitization
High Also affects ghost
GHSA-r7f2-6fj8-6fg2
Ghost: Private IP Filtering Bypass via IPv6 Transition Addresses
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-322m-ff4g-9vx9
Ghost: Server-Side Request Forgery in Bookmark Fetching
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-fwh9-qg68-vxp4
Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in Content Import
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-9m4w-fmjw-fvjq
Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in External Media Inliner
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-hqq2-xqr2-fmx2
Ghost : Stored XSS via SVG Files in Content Imports
Medium Also affects ghost
GHSA-69qc-f5m6-889c
Ghost: Stored XSS via Embed Card Previews
High Also affects ghost
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