Skip to content

GHSA-7h62-6v23-v8fm CVE-2026-50284

Craft CMS: Missing peer-permission check in `AssetsController::actionDeleteFolder` allows deletion of other users' assets

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.77% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
5.9.22
Upgrade craftcms/cms to this version or later

Description

Summary

AssetsController::actionDeleteFolder() only requires the deleteAssets:<volume-uid> permission for the target folder. It never enforces deletePeerAssets:<volume-uid>, even though Assets::deleteFoldersByIds() cascades deletion to every descendant folder and every asset inside, regardless of who uploaded them. A low-privilege user who has been granted folder-management rights on a shared volume can therefore destroy assets uploaded by other users (peer assets), bypassing the per-asset peer-permission check that the sibling actionDeleteAsset endpoint correctly applies.

This is the same bug class that was just fixed in actionMoveFolder as GHSA-3w32-23wj-rxg3 (commit 05c2042, Apr 23 2026); the fix added requireVolumePermissionByFolder('deletePeerAssets', …) and savePeerAssets checks to the move endpoint but did not propagate to the delete-folder endpoint.

Details

src/controllers/AssetsController.php:552-569:

public function actionDeleteFolder(): Response
{
    $this->requireAcceptsJson();
    $folderId = $this->request->getRequiredBodyParam('folderId');

    $assets = Craft::$app->getAssets();
    $folder = $assets->getFolderById($folderId);

    if (!$folder) {
        throw new BadRequestHttpException('The folder cannot be found');
    }

    // Check if it's possible to delete objects in the target volume.
    $this->requireVolumePermissionByFolder('deleteAssets', $folder); // <-- only checks deleteAssets
    $assets->deleteFoldersByIds($folderId);

    return $this->asSuccess();
}

requireVolumePermissionByFolder() (src/controllers/AssetsControllerTrait.php:75-88) only resolves to a single requirePermission('deleteAssets:<vol-uid>') call. The peer-equivalent helper (requirePeerVolumePermissionByAsset) is never invoked because there is no folder-level peer helper that iterates the folder's contents.

Assets::deleteFoldersByIds() (src/services/Assets.php:311-349) then enumerates the folder + every descendant folder, queries every asset under those IDs, and calls Craft::$app->getElements()->deleteElement($asset, true) directly:

$assetQuery = Asset::find()->folderId($allFolderIds);
$elementService = Craft::$app->getElements();

foreach (Db::each($assetQuery) as $asset) {
    $asset->keepFileOnDelete = !$deleteDir;
    $elementService->deleteElement($asset, true);
}

This bypasses Asset::canDelete() (src/elements/Asset.php:1515-1536):

public function canDelete(User $user): bool
{
    if ($this->isFolder) { return false; }
    if (parent::canDelete($user)) { return true; }
    $volume = $this->getVolume();
    if (Assets::isTempUploadFs($volume->getFs())) { return true; }

    if ($this->uploaderId !== $user->id) {
        return $user->can("deletePeerAssets:$volume->uid"); // <-- never reached on cascade delete
    }
    return $user->can("deleteAssets:$volume->uid");
}

Compare to actionDeleteAsset (src/controllers/AssetsController.php:579-613), which correctly does:

$this->requireVolumePermissionByAsset('deleteAssets', $asset);
$this->requirePeerVolumePermissionByAsset('deletePeerAssets', $asset);

The fix that landed in 05c2042 for actionMoveFolder (src/controllers/AssetsController.php:733-765) added both savePeerAssets and deletePeerAssets requireVolumePermissionByFolder checks to mirror the per-asset pattern, but the same hardening was not applied to actionDeleteFolder or actionRenameFolder (which also calls deleteFoldersByIds indirectly through later logic).

The asymmetry between the two endpoints demonstrates the missing check.

Impact

  • Integrity / availability of other users' assets on any volume where the attacker has deleteAssets but not deletePeerAssets: the attacker can permanently delete peer-owned files (and their parent folder structure) on the underlying filesystem, with no recovery via Craft's UI.
  • The Craft permission model explicitly distinguishes "delete your own assets" (deleteAssets) from "delete other users' assets" (deletePeerAssets) precisely so administrators can grant the former without the latter on shared volumes — this finding renders that distinction unenforceable for any user given folder-delete rights.
  • No information disclosure or remote code execution; impact is bounded to the affected volume's contents.
  • Does not require any non-default configuration: the affected endpoint is enabled by default and only requires that an administrator has split deleteAssets from deletePeerAssets (the documented, supported permission model).

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
craftcms/cms
>= 5.0.0-RC1, < 5.9.22
5.9.22
craftcms/cms
>= 4.0.0-RC1, < 4.17.15
4.17.15

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.

craftcms/cms Packagist → 5.9.22

composer
composer require craftcms/cms:^5.9.22

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
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-7vrx-9684-xrf2
Craft CMS stores arbitrary content provided by unauthenticated users in session files
Medium Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-f3gw-9ww9-jmc3
Craft CMS Allows Remote Code Execution
Critical Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-x684-96hh-833x
Craft CMS has a potential RCE with a compromised security key
High Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-2p6p-9rc9-62j9
Craft CMS has potential RCE when PHP `register_argc_argv` config setting is enabled
Critical Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-wg23-69c2-gjc8
Craft CMS: Passkey login accepts replayed WebAuthn assertions
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-957r-qf9p-67xw
Craft CMS: Arbitrary file read via SplFileObject in non-sandboxed template contexts
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-596p-6jv8-775v
Craft CMS: Authenticated leak of secret environment variables
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-xxpx-f366-4xpq
Craft CMS: Authorization bypass: view-only Categories user can modify category structure via structures/move-element
Medium Also affects craftcms/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