GHSA-52pr-7vmf-2w7x CVE-2026-7888
Concrete CMS is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection via unserialize() calls in the Workflow, Form block, and File/Set components
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.15%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 4.65% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- Fix
9.5.2- Upgrade concrete5/concrete5 to this version or later
Description
Concrete CMS below 9.5.2 is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection via unserialize() calls in the Workflow, Form block, and File/Set components that lack the allowed_classes restriction. An unauthenticated attacker may trigger arbitrary PHP object instantiation if a malicious serialized payload has been placed in the database. The Concrete CMS security team thanks XananasX7 and Sanjorn Keeratirungsan (dizconnect) for both independently reporting this ssue.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| concrete5/concrete5 | < 9.5.2 |
9.5.2 |
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.
concrete5/concrete5 Packagist → 9.5.2
- composer
composer require concrete5/concrete5:^9.5.2
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
- Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
- Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
- Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
- 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].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g82f-9pw7-773w Concrete CMS: PHP Object Injection via unserialize() calls | High | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-q9fm-mpg8-8jqm Concrete CMS is vulnerable to Stored XSS via page name in the Atomik theme | Medium | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-jqvq-gv67-3567 Concrete CMS is vulnerable to IDOR + wrong-authorization-level in the Express association Reorder dialog | Medium | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-xjg6-5v39-v7fc Concrete CMS is vulnerable to CSRF via Backend\File::approveVersion | Medium | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-44q4-354f-c826 Concrete CMS is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file approveVersion() | Medium | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-6qjh-p324-694f Concrete CMS is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescanMultiple() | High | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-6fxm-r8p3-mx5c Concrete CMS is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescan() | High | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
| GHSA-97jw-gr4m-c5v8 Concrete CMS is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file star() | High | Also affects concrete5/concrete5 |
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