GHSA-gf43-24g3-5hw2 CVE-2026-45013
Apostrophe has a Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password and Improper Input Validation
- Severity
- 8.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.30%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 23.28% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
- CWE-640 Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
ApostropheCMS's password reset flow constructs the reset URL using req.hostname,
which is derived directly from the attacker-controlled HTTP Host header when
apos.baseUrl is not explicitly configured. An unauthenticated attacker who knows
a victim's email address can send a crafted reset request that causes the application
to email the victim a reset link pointing to the attacker's domain. When the victim
clicks the link, the valid reset token is delivered to the attacker, enabling full
account takeover.
Affected Component
modules/@apostrophecms/login/index.js — resetRequest route
Precondition: passwordReset: true is set and apos.baseUrl is not configured.
Vulnerability Details
The setPrefixUrls middleware (i18n layer) builds req.baseUrl using req.hostname:
// Simplified from i18n middleware
req.baseUrl = `${req.protocol}://${req.hostname}`;
req.absoluteUrl = req.baseUrl + req.url;
The resetRequest handler then passes this tainted value directly into URL construction:
const parsed = new URL(
req.absoluteUrl, // ← tainted by attacker's Host header
self.apos.baseUrl
? undefined
: `${req.protocol}://${req.hostname}${port}` // ← also tainted
);
parsed.pathname = '/login';
parsed.searchParams.append('reset', reset); // real, valid token
parsed.searchParams.append('email', user.email);
await self.email(..., { url: parsed.toString() }, ...);
// Email sent to victim with URL pointing to attacker-controlled domain
When apos.baseUrl is configured, it is used unconditionally and the attacker's
Host header is ignored — that path is not vulnerable.
Attack Scenario
- Attacker identifies a valid user email (e.g. from the site's public interface).
- Attacker sends:
POST /api/v1/login/reset-request
Host: evil.attacker.com
Content-Type: application/json
{"email": "victim@example.com"}
- The application emails the victim:
Click here to reset your password:
http://evil.attacker.com/login?reset=TOKEN&email=victim@example.com
- Victim clicks the link; attacker's server captures
TOKEN. - Attacker calls the real target's reset endpoint with the captured token and sets a new password — full account takeover.
Preconditions
passwordReset: trueconfigured in login module options (opt-in)apos.baseUrlis not set (common in development and some production deployments)- Attacker knows or can enumerate a valid account email
Impact
Full account takeover of any account whose email address is known to the attacker. No authentication or interaction beyond sending a single HTTP request is required from the attacker. The victim need only click a link in a legitimate-looking password reset email from their own site.
Remediation
Operators (immediate): Always set apos.baseUrl in your configuration:
// app.js or module configuration
modules: {
'@apostrophecms/express': {
options: {
baseUrl: 'https://yourdomain.com'
}
}
}
Framework fix (recommended): The resetRequest route should refuse to proceed
if apos.baseUrl is not configured, rather than falling back to the tainted
req.hostname. Example:
// In resetRequest handler
if (!self.apos.baseUrl) {
throw self.apos.error(
'invalid',
'apos.baseUrl must be configured to enable password reset'
);
}
const parsed = new URL(self.loginUrl(), self.apos.baseUrl);
This eliminates the attacker-controlled input entirely from the URL construction path.
References
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| apostrophe | <= 4.29.0 |
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 8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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.
- 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. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-640: Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Make sure that all input supplied by the user to the password recovery mechanism is thoroughly filtered and validated.
- Architecture and Design: Do not use standard weak security questions and use several security questions.
- Architecture and Design: Make sure that there is throttling on the number of incorrect answers to a security question. Disable the password recovery functionality after a certain (small) number of incorrect guesses.
- Architecture and Design: Require that the user properly answers the security question prior to resetting their password and sending the new password to the e-mail address of record.
- Architecture and Design: Never allow the user to control what e-mail address the new password will be sent to in the password recovery mechanism.
- Architecture and Design: Assign a new temporary password rather than revealing the original password.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-86wm-68pq-5jwq ApostropheCMS: Unauthenticated resource exhaustion via pre-auth aposBigUpload processing in @apostrophecms/import-export | High | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-653j-g8j7-gh54 ApostropheCMS: No Attempt Throttling on Authenticated Password-Change Endpoint Enables Unlimited Current-Password Guessing | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-vwwx-px9w-crrc ApostropheCMS: Missing Authorization on Notification PATCH/DELETE Endpoints | Low | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-vmxh-77cw-65j7 ApostropheCMS: Authenticated Object-Level Authorization Bypass in exist-in-locale Reveals Restricted Localized Draft Identifiers | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-m2m5-rw3w-cwmj ApostropheCMS: Client-side Prototype Pollution in apos.http.parseQuery leading to DOM-based XSS against authenticated users | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-gqh3-7856-rjjg ApostropheCMS: :_id/locales REST route omits the public-API authorization gate its sibling read routes enforce (unauthenticated doc-existence + locale metadata disclosure) | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-hhvr-8m24-qqr3 ApostropheCMS: Cross-domain session token in URL confers session takeover | Medium | Also affects apostrophe |
| GHSA-j5rq-xfvr-p969 ApostropheCMS: Authenticated projection-exclusion prototype-member deletion in @apostrophecms/db-connect causes process-wide denial of service | High | Also affects apostrophe |
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