GHSA-67mx-6wf2-92xp CVE-2026-71415
Kirby: File upload permissions are not checked during processing of chunk data
- 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
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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