GHSA-9xg7-mwmp-xmjx BIT-ghost-2026-22595 CVE-2026-22595
Ghost has Staff Token permission bypass
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.54%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.28% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
- Fix
6.11.0- Upgrade ghost to this version or later
Description
Impact
A vulnerability in Ghost's handling of Staff Token authentication allowed certain endpoints to be accessed that were only intended to be accessible via Staff Session authentication. External systems that have been authenticated via Staff Tokens for Admin/Owner-role users would have had access to these endpoints.
Vulnerable versions
This vulnerability is present in Ghost v5.121.0 to v5.130.5 to and Ghost v6.0.0 to v6.10.3.
Patches
v5.130.6 and v6.11.0 contain a fix for this issue.
References
Ghost thanks Sho Odagiri of GMO Cybersecurity by Ierae, Inc. for discovering and disclosing this vulnerability responsibly.
For more information
If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, email Ghost at security@ghost.org.
Affected versions
npm
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.
ghost npm → 6.11.0
- npm
npm install ghost@6.11.0- yarn
yarn add ghost@6.11.0- pnpm
pnpm add ghost@6.11.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-x3mg-q38v-m562 Ghost: Authorization Issue Allowed Author Role to Delete any Post | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-8575-cr6v-7jh4 Ghost: Stored XSS via SVG Uploads Bypassing Sanitization | High | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-r7f2-6fj8-6fg2 Ghost: Private IP Filtering Bypass via IPv6 Transition Addresses | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-322m-ff4g-9vx9 Ghost: Server-Side Request Forgery in Bookmark Fetching | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-fwh9-qg68-vxp4 Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in Content Import | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-9m4w-fmjw-fvjq Ghost: Regular Expression Denial of Service in External Media Inliner | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-hqq2-xqr2-fmx2 Ghost : Stored XSS via SVG Files in Content Imports | Medium | Also affects ghost |
| GHSA-69qc-f5m6-889c Ghost: Stored XSS via Embed Card Previews | High | Also affects ghost |
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