Skip to content

GHSA-86wm-68pq-5jwq CVE-2026-113711

ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated resource exhaustion via pre-auth aposBigUpload processing in @apostrophecms/import-export

High npm
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.56%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 46.68% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

A potential unauthenticated denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the chunked import upload path used by @apostrophecms/import-export.

The affected import API routes invoke:

self.apos.http.bigUploadMiddleware()

before the actual import handler performs its authentication check.

Because no authorize callback is supplied to bigUploadMiddleware(), unauthenticated requests can reach the aposBigUpload start, chunk, and end operations before the later req.user check rejects the import.

As a result, an unauthenticated remote attacker can create server-side upload state, write chunk data to upload storage, trigger temporary-file processing, and cause attacker-controlled cleanup operations before authentication is enforced.

Affected Component

Package:

@apostrophecms/import-export

Confirmed affected version:

3.6.2

Potential earlier affected versions:

The issue may affect earlier 3.x releases in which the current big-upload-based import implementation is present. I have not yet fully verified the exact introduction version and recommend that the maintainers confirm the affected version range.

Vulnerability Type

Primary:

CWE-400 — Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Related:

CWE-306 — Missing Authentication for Critical Function

CWE-770 — Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

Technical Details

The page import route registers the following middleware chain:

packages/import-export/modules/@apostrophecms/import-export-page/index.js

importExportImport: [
  self.apos.http.bigUploadMiddleware(),
  async (req) => {
    return self.apos.modules['@apostrophecms/import-export']
      .import(req, self.__meta.name);
  }
]

No authorize callback is passed to bigUploadMiddleware().

The bigUploadMiddleware() implementation explicitly supports an authorize callback and performs that authorization before processing the aposBigUpload protocol when supplied.

Without that callback, requests containing:

aposBigUpload[type]=start

aposBigUpload[type]=chunk

or

aposBigUpload[type]=end

are processed immediately.

The actual authentication check occurs later in:

packages/import-export/lib/methods/import.js

async import(req, moduleName) {
  if (!req.user) {
    throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
  }

This means authentication occurs only after the chunked-upload middleware has already performed server-side work.

Attack Flow

1. Start

An unauthenticated attacker submits an aposBigUpload[type]=start request.

The server generates an upload ID and stores attacker-supplied upload metadata, including the declared chunks count.

2. Chunk

The attacker can upload chunk data.

bigUploadChunk() copies attacker-controlled data into:

/big-uploads/<id>-<n>-<chunk>

3. End

The attacker sends an aposBigUpload[type]=end request.

bigUploadEnd() begins processing the upload and creates temporary files before invoking the downstream import handler.

Only after this processing completes does execution reach the later authentication check in import().

4. Cleanup amplification

The attacker-controlled chunks value is also used by bigUploadCleanupOne():

for (const { chunks } of Object.values(bigUpload.files)) {
  for (let i = 0; (i < chunks); i++) {
    await ufs.remove(...);
  }
}

No small upper bound on the declared chunk count appears to be enforced at upload initialization.

This allows an unauthenticated attacker to increase the number of filesystem cleanup operations performed for an upload.

Proof of Concept

The following reproduction was performed only against an isolated test environment.

Start an upload without authentication

curl -s -X POST \
  'http://localhost:3000/api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/importExportImport?aposBigUpload[type]=start' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  --data '{"files":{"file":{"name":"evil.tar.gz","size":4,"type":"application/gzip","chunks":1}}}'

The server returns an upload ID despite the request having no authenticated session.

Upload a chunk

printf 'PWN!' >/tmp/chunk.bin

curl -s -X POST \
  'http://localhost:3000/api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/importExportImport?aposBigUpload[type]=chunk&aposBigUpload[id]=<ID>&aposBigUpload[n]=0&aposBigUpload[chunk]=0' \
  -F 'chunk=@/tmp/chunk.bin;type=application/octet-stream'

The request succeeds and causes server-side upload storage to be used.

Finalize the upload

curl -i -X POST \
  'http://localhost:3000/api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/importExportImport?aposBigUpload[type]=end&aposBigUpload[id]=<ID>'

Observed behavior:

  • start returns HTTP 200 and an upload ID without authentication.
  • chunk returns HTTP 200 and results in server-side chunk storage.
  • end eventually reaches the downstream authentication check and is rejected.
  • However, the server-side big-upload processing has already occurred before that authentication rejection.

In my isolated harness:

  • chunks=1 resulted in one cleanup removal attempt.
  • chunks=50 resulted in 50 cleanup removal attempts.

This demonstrates that the attacker-controlled chunk count directly influences server-side cleanup work.

Security Impact

The vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause server-side storage and filesystem operations that should only be reachable by authorized import users.

Possible consequences include:

  • Consumption of upload and temporary storage.
  • Creation of server-side upload state by unauthenticated users.
  • Repeated filesystem I/O.
  • Cleanup amplification based on attacker-controlled chunk counts.
  • Potential service degradation or denial of service when the attack is repeated or sufficiently amplified.

Root Cause

Authentication is enforced in the downstream import handler rather than before the chunked-upload middleware.

The middleware itself already supports an authorize callback specifically for preventing unauthorized use of the big-upload functionality.

Suggested Remediation

Require authentication before any aposBigUpload operation is processed.

For example:

  • Pass an appropriate authorize callback to bigUploadMiddleware() on all import routes.
  • Reject unauthenticated users before start, chunk, or end.
  • Enforce reasonable limits on declared chunk counts.
  • Validate declared size against actual uploaded data.
  • Introduce per-user and global storage/rate limits.
  • Ensure temporary files are removed when downstream processing fails.
  • Add regression tests confirming that anonymous start, chunk, and end requests are rejected before upload state or files are created.

Relevant reviewed commit:

d3ff8c9bb001be1acf7fdc3f035190250ac64b45

Researcher Credit

Kai Zhi

GitHub:

https://github.com/kaizhi888

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@apostrophecms/import-export
< 3.7.0
3.7.0
apostrophe
< 4.33.0
4.33.0

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.

@apostrophecms/import-export npm → 3.7.0

npm
npm install @apostrophecms/import-export@3.7.0
yarn
yarn add @apostrophecms/import-export@3.7.0
pnpm
pnpm add @apostrophecms/import-export@3.7.0

apostrophe npm → 4.33.0

npm
npm install apostrophe@4.33.0
yarn
yarn add apostrophe@4.33.0
pnpm
pnpm add apostrophe@4.33.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-653j-g8j7-gh54
ApostropheCMS: No Attempt Throttling on Authenticated Password-Change Endpoint Enables Unlimited Current-Password Guessing
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc
ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints
Low Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-vmxh-77cw-65j7
ApostropheCMS: Authenticated Object-Level Authorization Bypass in exist-in-locale Reveals Restricted Localized Draft Identifiers
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-m2m5-rw3w-cwmj
ApostropheCMS: Client-side Prototype Pollution in apos.http.parseQuery leading to DOM-based XSS against authenticated users
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-gqh3-7856-rjjg
ApostropheCMS: :_id/locales REST route omits the public-API authorization gate its sibling read routes enforce (unauthenticated doc-existence + locale metadata disclosure)
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-hhvr-8m24-qqr3
ApostropheCMS: Cross-domain session token in URL confers session takeover
Medium Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-j5rq-xfvr-p969
ApostropheCMS: Authenticated projection-exclusion prototype-member deletion in @apostrophecms/db-connect causes process-wide denial of service
High Also affects apostrophe
GHSA-qhcq-9pm2-c9w9
ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated CSV import requests leave rejected uploads in the system temporary directory
High Also affects apostrophe
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