GHSA-hwvq-2w67-rvxp CVE-2026-47346

TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its Form Framework

High Packagist

Severity: 0.0 / 10; High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS): 0.25%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 16.79% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-178 Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity; CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix: Available; 2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Problem

Backend users with file write permissions were able to upload form definition files with mixed-case extensions (e.g., .FORM.YAML) to bypass the Form Framework's upload restriction. Maliciously crafted form definition files can be used to execute arbitrary SQL statements, allowing attackers to escalate privileges by creating administrative backend user accounts.

Solution

Update to TYPO3 versions 10.4.57 ELTS, 11.5.51 ELTS, 12.4.46 ELTS, 13.4.31 LTS, 14.3.3 LTS that fix the problem described.

Credits

TYPO3 CMS thanks Alexander Künzl for reporting this issue, and to TYPO3 core & security team members Oliver Hader and Benjamin Franzke for fixing it.

Resources

TYPO3-CORE-SA-2026-008

Affected versions

Packagist

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
typo3/cms-core	`< 10.4.57`	`10.4.57`
typo3/cms-core	`>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.51`	`11.5.51`
typo3/cms-core	`>= 12.0.0, < 12.4.46`	`12.4.46`
typo3/cms-core	`>= 13.0.0, < 13.4.31`	`13.4.31`
typo3/cms-core	`>= 14.0.0, < 14.3.3`	`14.3.3`
typo3/cms-form	`< 10.4.57`	`10.4.57`
typo3/cms-form	`>= 11.0.0, < 11.5.51`	`11.5.51`
typo3/cms-form	`>= 12.0.0, < 12.4.46`	`12.4.46`
typo3/cms-form	`>= 13.0.0, < 13.4.31`	`13.4.31`
typo3/cms-form	`>= 14.0.0, < 14.3.3`	`14.3.3`

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.

typo3/cms-core Packagist → `10.4.57`

composer

composer require typo3/cms-core:^10.4.57

typo3/cms-form Packagist → `10.4.57`

composer

composer require typo3/cms-form:^10.4.57

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

Weakness

CWE-178: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
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.
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.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

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

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47346

Packages

github.com/TYPO3/typo3

Timeline

Jun 9, 2026 Published
Sep 10, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-68jx-f42c-7599 TYPO3 CMS - Broken Access Control in Backend and Install Tool	High	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-chm7-4vch-h8vr TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its Media Module	High	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jh32-v29g-68pq TYPO3 CMS has Privilege Escalation & SQL Injection in its Form Framework	High	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-c78m-c52x-jgwp TYPO3 CMS has Insecure Deserialization via Core API	Medium	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-jf56-v8jc-jcc5 TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its File Abstraction Layer	Low	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-2j54-93q2-3hjq TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in Backend API	Medium	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-q93m-25xv-94hh TYPO3 CMS: Broken Access Control in Media Module	Medium	Also affects typo3/cms-core
GHSA-qcmw-6rm2-5x78 TYPO3 CMS has Broken Access Control in its DataHandler	Medium	Also affects typo3/cms-core

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