GHSA-788w-68h3-cvxp BIT-ghost-2026-105642 CVE-2026-105642
Ghost: Remote Code Execution via Bookmark Card Images
High
npm
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.27%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 18.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1395 Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
6.67.0- Upgrade ghost to this version or later
Description
Impact
An image processing library bundled with Ghost contained a vulnerability in its SVG handling. Any staff user, including Contributors, could create a bookmark card for an attacker-controlled website, resulting in arbitrary commands being run on the Ghost server.
Vulnerable versions
This vulnerability is present in Ghost from v6.56.0 up to v6.65.0.
Patches
v6.67.0 contains a fix for this issue.
How to update
For self-hosters using Docker, find Docker's official Ghost image here. Updating a Docker-based Ghost instance is documented here.
If your Ghost is a Ghost-CLI install see our documentation on updating it to the latest version here.
References
We thank Rafael B. for disclosing this vulnerability responsibly.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email us at security@ghost.org.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ghost | >= 6.56.0, < 6.67.0 |
6.67.0 |
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.
ghost npm → 6.67.0
- npm
npm install ghost@6.67.0- yarn
yarn add ghost@6.67.0- pnpm
pnpm add ghost@6.67.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1395: Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component
The product has a dependency on a third-party component that contains one or more known vulnerabilities.
How to prevent it
- Requirements, Policy: In some industries such as healthcare [REF-1320] [REF-1322] or technologies such as the cloud [REF-1321], it might be unclear about who is responsible for applying patches for third-party vulnerabilities: the vendor, the operator/customer, or a separate service. Clarifying roles and responsibilities can be important to minimize confusion or unnecessary delay when third-party vulnerabilities are disclosed.
- Requirements: Require a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, require a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) [REF-1247] [REF-1311].
- Architecture and Design, Implementation, Integration, Manufacturing: Maintain a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, maintain a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). According to [REF-1247], "An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of software components and dependencies, information about those components, and their hierarchical relationships."
- Operation, Patching and Maintenance: Actively monitor when a third-party component vendor announces vulnerability patches; fix the third-party component as soon as possible; and make it easy for operators/customers to obtain and apply the patch.
- Operation, Patching and Maintenance: Continuously monitor changes in each of the product's components, especially when the changes indicate new vulnerabilities, end-of-life (EOL) plans, etc.
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-x3mg-q38v-m562 Ghost: Authorization Issue Allowed Author Role to Delete any Post | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-8575-cr6v-7jh4 Ghost: Stored XSS via SVG Uploads Bypassing Sanitization | High | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-r7f2-6fj8-6fg2 Ghost: Private IP Filtering Bypass via IPv6 Transition Addresses | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-322m-ff4g-9vx9 Ghost: Server-Side Request Forgery in Bookmark Fetching | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-fwh9-qg68-vxp4 Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in Content Import | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-9m4w-fmjw-fvjq Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in External Media Inliner | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-hqq2-xqr2-fmx2 Ghost : Stored XSS via SVG Files in Content Imports | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-69qc-f5m6-889c Ghost: Stored XSS via Embed Card Previews | High | Also affects ghost |
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