GHSA-7mqq-4v55-88gh CVE-2026-54244
Statamic CMS's incorrect authorization lets view-only users submit Live Preview content reserved for editors
- Severity
- 3.5 / 10
- Low · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.30%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.04% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
5.74.0- Upgrade statamic/cms to this version or later
Description
Impact
The Live Preview endpoint for existing entries and terms only checked view authorization, but it accepts and renders caller-supplied field values. A Control Panel user with view but not edit permission could therefore submit content they were not authorized to author and generate a shareable Live Preview URL rendering it.
Patches
This has been fixed in 5.74.0 and 6.20.3.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| statamic/cms | < 5.74.0 |
5.74.0 |
| statamic/cms | >= 6.0.0, < 6.20.3 |
6.20.3 |
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.
statamic/cms Packagist → 5.74.0
- composer
composer require statamic/cms:^5.74.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 3.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-vx89-p3j7-8xqc Statamic: Stored Cross-Site Scripting in Automagic Form Notification Email Template | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-qhr7-v3xp-vw9m Statamic: Missing file upload validation on frontend forms allows uploading disallowed file types | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-qh8c-7588-qfrv Statamic: Missing authorization on navigation endpoint allows disclosure of restricted entries | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-j2vp-f2pv-5rj4 Statamic: Unsafe method invocation via Antlers template resolution allows data destruction | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-93qh-5269-9wcf Statamic: Account takeover via OAuth email matching without email-verification check | High | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-225x-3jhx-wh4q Statamic: Missing authorization on Control Panel endpoint allows disclosure of user existence | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-jppw-r5j3-xf7x Statamic CMS exposes two-factor recovery codes through dynamic Antlers rendering | Medium | Also affects statamic/cms |
| GHSA-h77m-qrj7-jxcw Statamic Vulnerable to CSV formula injection in form submission exports | Medium | Also affects statamic/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