GHSA-66q5-cj5g-wrfx CVE-2026-50183
WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section
- Severity
- 4.7 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.20%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 9.47% 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
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section
Summary
A stored Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability (CWE-79; chained CWE-829, Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere) in the AVideo YouTubeAPI plugin renders the snippet.title field returned by the YouTube Data API into the homepage gallery markup with no HTML encoding. The title is set by the YouTube video uploader (anyone in the world) and is treated by AVideo as trusted content. A YouTube uploader who controls a video matching the operator's configured query injects HTML into the AVideo homepage by setting their video's title to a JavaScript-bearing string; the payload then executes in the browser of every visitor who loads any page that renders the gallery.
Details
plugin/YouTubeAPI/YouTubeAPI.php::listVideos() fetches search results from the YouTube Data API and stores the snippet.title field unchanged inside a YPTvideoObject:
// plugin/YouTubeAPI/YouTubeAPI.php (listVideos excerpt)
$searchResponse = $youtube->search->listSearch(
'snippet,contentDetails,statistics', $options
);
foreach ($searchResponse['items'] as $searchResult) {
$vid = new YPTvideoObject(
$searchResult["id"]["videoId"],
$searchResult['snippet']["title"], // uploader-controlled
$searchResult['snippet']["description"],
$searchResult['snippet']["thumbnails"]["high"]["url"],
$searchResult['snippet']["channelTitle"],
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/{$searchResult['id']['videoId']}"
);
$object->videos[] = $vid;
}
plugin/YouTubeAPI/gallerySection.php then renders the title into three HTML contexts inside each gallery card. Four reflection sites total, three of them completely unprotected:
// plugin/YouTubeAPI/gallerySection.php (foreach body)
$youtubeTitle = $video->title;
...
<a class="evideo" href="<?php echo $youtubeEmbedLink; ?>" title="<?php echo $youtubeTitle; ?>"> <!-- (i) attribute -->
<img src="<?php echo $youtubeThumbs; ?>" alt="<?php echo str_replace('"', '', $youtubeTitle); ?>" ... /> <!-- (ii) attribute, partial -->
</a>
<a class="h6 evideo" href="<?php echo $youtubeEmbedLink; ?>" title="<?php echo $youtubeTitle; ?>"> <!-- (iii) attribute -->
<h2><?php echo $youtubeTitle; ?></h2> <!-- (iv) element body -->
</a>
Sites (i), (iii), and (iv) call no encoder. Site (ii) applies str_replace('"', '', $youtubeTitle) which strips quotes from one attribute and leaves the other three reflections untouched. The strongest sink is (iv) at line 60: a title containing <script>alert(2222)</script> produces <h2><script>alert(2222)</script></h2> in the rendered DOM, which the browser parses as a live script element and executes synchronously. The single half-mitigation at line 57 is the maintainer's evidence of awareness of the attribute-injection risk; the same developer left the other three sinks unprotected.
AVideo additionally caches the YouTube response for cacheTimeout seconds (default 3600), so even after the title is changed on YouTube or the video is removed, the AVideo gallery continues to serve the malicious title until the cache expires or is manually flushed.
Affected product: AVideo (WWBN), YouTubeAPI plugin Tested version: master branch, commit 122b184 (snapshot dated 2026-05-22)
PoC
The AVideo operator must have the YouTubeAPI plugin enabled (the default after configuring a YouTube Data API key) with showGallerySection=true (the default). The attacker controls a YouTube video (uploaded under any free YouTube account) whose title is set to:
<script>alert(2222)</script>
The attacker arranges for the AVideo operator's configured YouTube search query (the keyword plugin setting, typically a channel name or topical phrase) to match the hostile video. The matching condition is the same as a normal YouTube search: a unique phrase in the video's description, a channel name the operator follows, or any query the operator has configured.
After AVideo's cacheTimeout window elapses (default 3600 seconds) and a fresh listVideos() call fetches the malicious title, any visitor opening the AVideo homepage triggers an alert(2222) modal dialog as the gallery card renders.
For deterministic test reproduction, deploy a mock YouTube Data API service that impersonates www.googleapis.com and youtube.googleapis.com on the AVideo Docker network and returns the malicious title directly. The PoC then reduces to:
https://avideo.example/
Configure the YouTubeAPI plugin in the admin panel (/plugins) with any non-empty developer_key and any keyword value, then load the homepage. The browser fires alert(2222) as the gallery section finishes rendering.
Impact
This is a Stored XSS vulnerability (CWE-79) in a publicly-rendered HTML context, with the data source under attacker control (CWE-829). Every visitor who loads any AVideo page rendering the YouTubeAPI gallery section is impacted: the injected JavaScript runs in the visitor's session under the AVideo origin, reads non-HttpOnly cookies, and issues authenticated requests as the visitor. When the visitor is an AVideo administrator, the injected JavaScript performs any admin action (create user, promote to admin, change configuration, install plugin) that uses cookie-based authentication without an additional CSRF token, escalating the bug into full administrative takeover. The payload persists for the duration of cacheTimeout (default 3600 seconds) after the malicious title is set on YouTube and survives YouTube removing the hostile video for the same window.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| WWBN/AVideo | <= 29.0 |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 4.7
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- 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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7cqp-7cfv-6c3q AVideo Meet plugin: anonymous-to-admin stored XSS via unescaped participant User-Agent in getMeetInfo.json.php Participants panel | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-wc3f-xc32-435f AVideo has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33482: sanitizeFFmpegCommand still allows a single '&' (background operator), giving OS command execution at the same execAsync sh -c sink | High | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-wf69-r4mx-43rr AVideo Vulnerable to Unauthenticated .env File Exposure via Official Docker Compose Configuration | High | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-8j8m-p79x-g4jm AVideo's Privilege Escalation via Unguarded Permission Parameters in signUp API Allows Self-Granting Upload/Stream/Meet Permissions | Medium | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
| GHSA-8whc-2wmv-ww35 WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Stored DOM Cross-Site Scripting via Per-Client Metadata Broadcast in YPTSocket Plugin | Critical | Also affects WWBN/AVideo |
| GHSA-hgjh-6wj8-gcgf WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS via $_GET['search'] in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Pagination | Medium | Also affects WWBN/AVideo |
| GHSA-2fhx-q92v-5fhv WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via autoEvalCodeOnHTML Bypass in MessageSQLite WebSocket Handler (CVE-2026-43874 Bypass) | High | Also affects wwbn/avideo |
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