Skip to content

GHSA-4x9g-vw65-vvf9 CVE-2026-53653

Grav: Unauthenticated denial of service via unbounded image derivative dimensions

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.52%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.44% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
2.0.0-rc.8
Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later

Description

Summary

An unauthenticated visitor exhausts server memory and CPU by requesting an image with oversized resize dimensions. One request drives a worker to several gigabytes of RAM and tens of seconds of CPU. A few concurrent requests take the host down.

Details

Grav::fallbackUrl() (system/src/Grav/Common/Grav.php:800-804) loops over every query parameter and, when the name matches ImageMedium::$magic_actions, calls that method on the medium with the comma-split value as arguments:

foreach ($uri->query(null, true) as $action => $params) {
    if (in_array($action, ImageMedium::$magic_actions, true)) {
        call_user_func_array([&$medium, $action], explode(',', $params));
    }
}

forceResize runs with force=true, so it sets the output size to the attacker's values with no clamp against the source or any ceiling. The getgrav/image GD adapter then calls imagecreatetruecolor($w, $h). libgd allocates that buffer outside PHP's emalloc, so memory_limit does not cap it. Grav exposes no system.images.max_width/max_height setting.

PoC

Any page that serves an image works. With a 200x150 source image:

GET /home/test.png?forceResize=20000,20000

Measured on PHP 8.4.21 with memory_limit=128M:

  • peak worker RSS 3,109 MB
  • 21.9 s CPU
  • HTTP 200, 1.6 MB response

8000x8000 already needs ~244 MB. The cache key includes the dimensions, so varying them forces fresh work on every request.

Impact

Unauthenticated denial of service against any Grav site that serves images. No account, plugin, or non-default config required.

Fix

Clamp the request-derived dimensions before dispatch, behind a configurable cap. The image library is the wrong layer; bound the arguments at the request boundary.

--- a/system/src/Grav/Common/Grav.php
+++ b/system/src/Grav/Common/Grav.php
@@ public function fallbackUrl($path)
                 foreach ($uri->query(null, true) as $action => $params) {
                     if (in_array($action, ImageMedium::$magic_actions, true)) {
-                        call_user_func_array([&$medium, $action], explode(',', $params));
+                        $args = explode(',', $params);
+                        $max = (int) $config->get('system.images.max_dimension', 8000);
+                        if ($max > 0
+                            && in_array($action, ['resize', 'forceResize', 'cropResize', 'cropZoom', 'zoomCrop', 'crop'], true)) {
+                            foreach ($args as $a) {
+                                if (is_numeric($a) && (int) $a > $max) {
+                                    return false; // reject oversized derivative request
+                                }
+                            }
+                        }
+                        call_user_func_array([&$medium, $action], $args);
                     }
                 }

Document system.images.max_dimension (default 8000) so operators can tune it. A total-pixel ceiling (width * height) is a stricter alternative.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getgrav/grav
>= 2.0.0-beta.1, < 2.0.0-rc.8
2.0.0-rc.8
getgrav/grav
< 1.7.53
1.7.53

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.

getgrav/grav Packagist → 2.0.0-rc.8

composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^2.0.0-rc.8

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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.
  • 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: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xjw5-q542-3vmr
Grav: config_denied_paths default list omits `system`, exposing real secrets (e.g. system.cache.redis.password) via the Twig sandbox when config_access is enabled
High Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-3jhr-mxmx-38cx
Grav: UserInterface offsetget/offsetexists allow-listed in Twig sandbox let editor-authored content leak hashed_password and 2FA secrets via offsetGet()
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-9ccq-2jfg-qw33
Grav: Origin validation bypass in Uri::referrer() and Pages::referrerRoute() via unanchored prefix match
Critical Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-38p6-h87p-r4cg
Grav: Non constant time nonce comparison in Utils::verifyNonce() used for CSRF protection
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-p597-crqc-m349
Grav: The system, site, and theme Twig variables bypass the content sandbox entirely and are never covered by config_denied_paths
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-47ch-6w46-6xm7
Grav: media_directory() Twig function allows filesystem path traversal and file content disclosure from sandboxed page content
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-jq29-c7v8-rg55
Grav: Path Traversal in MediaUploadTrait::deleteFile() Allows Arbitrary File Deletion
High Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-8hgv-xc77-jmcr
Grav: Page editors can inject arbitrary script into rendered pages via the Twig sandbox's assets.addJs/addCss allowlist, escalating to super-admin
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
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