Skip to content

GHSA-67mx-6wf2-92xp CVE-2026-71415

Kirby: File upload permissions are not checked during processing of chunk data

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.02% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
5.5.2
Upgrade getkirby/cms to this version or later

Description

TL;DR

This vulnerability affects all Kirby sites where users of a particular role have access to the REST API (access.panel permission is enabled) but no permission to upload any kind of file (files.create, files.replace and user/users.update permissions are all disabled).

It was possible to fill up the temporary directory for chunked uploads with unfinished chunks even as a user without any upload permission.

This vulnerability is of high severity for affected sites.

Your Kirby sites are not affected if you intend all users of your site to be able to upload files. The vulnerability can only be exploited by authenticated users. It was not possible to bypass the actual permission checks for any files that end up in the content or site/accounts folders.


Introduction

Missing authorization allows authenticated users to perform actions they are not intended to have access to.

The effects of missing authorization can include unauthorized access to sensitive information as well as unauthorized changes to content or system information.

Affected components

Kirby's REST API provides routes to upload files, specifically to create content files, replace existing content files and to create and replace user avatars.

Each upload route takes either full file upload requests or chunked upload requests that can be continued in subsequent requests. During a chunked upload, the incomplete state of the uploaded file is stored in a temporary directory until the last chunk completes the file. At this time, the final permission and business logic checks are performed before the complete file is moved to its final destination.

Impact

In affected releases, the chunk upload handler did not check for the user's file upload permissions before storing incomplete chunk data in the temporary directory.

This allowed attackers without upload permissions to upload multiple large files in chunks. If the final chunk was never provided, Kirby would keep the incomplete files for 24 hours. This could cause attacker-controlled storage consumption until the temporary files were automatically cleaned up or manually removed, potentially preventing other users from uploading files, or site logic from storing data.

Patches

The problem has been patched in Kirby 5.5.2. Please update this or a later version to fix the vulnerability.

In all of the mentioned releases, we have added preflight checks to the upload chunk processor that verify the relevant system permission before storing the chunk data in the temporary directory.

Credits

Thanks to @alcls01111 for responsibly reporting the identified issue.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getkirby/cms
>= 5.0.0, < 5.5.2
5.5.2

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.

getkirby/cms Packagist → 5.5.2

composer
composer require getkirby/cms:^5.5.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Low
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-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9vx2-j98c-p72w
Kirby: Access to image files and limited access to JSON files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-6j4c-mgqr-qv76
Kirby: Access to image files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-rf2p-vh74-7vvh
Kirby: System path exposure from error messages in the REST API
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-r3w8-2c5r-h9j9
Kirby: `pages.access` permission is not checked in the `site/find` REST API route
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-89cp-7p28-jffg
Kirby: Access to files of top-level drafts is not protected by permissions
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-whxw-24jc-cwmv
Kirby: External Initialization of the Panel on reverse proxy setups with the `Forwarded` header
Critical Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-wr9h-4r83-f4v6
Kirby: Cross-site scripting (XSS) from incomplete HTML/XML sanitization in `Dom::sanitize()`
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-4v4h-m2qq-ppgw
Kirby: Request header injection in `Http\Remote`
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
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