GHSA-px5m-h76g-p7p8 CVE-2026-52778
YesWiki has Unsafe eval() in its Formula Calculato, Leading to Remote Code Execution & Denial of Service
- Severity
- 9.8 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.80%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 56.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1333 Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
4.6.6- Upgrade yeswiki/yeswiki to this version or later
Description
Summary
An unsafe execution vulnerability exists in the Bazar form field calculator (CalcField.php) of YesWiki. The application attempts to sanitize user-defined mathematical formulas using a complex recursive regular expression before passing them to the PHP eval() function. This implementation is inherently flawed: it is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS / Stack Overflow) which can crash the server, and it creates a high-risk architecture where any logic bypass directly results in arbitrary PHP code execution.
Details
Affected Component
- File: tools/bazar/fields/CalcField.php
- Method: formatValuesBeforeSave($entry)
- Vulnerable Mechanism: Combination of a complex recursive regex validation followed by eval().
The code attempts to implement a sandbox for mathematical operations by verifying the formula structure before executing it:
$regexpToCheckIfMathFormula = '/^((' . $number . '|' . $functions . '\s*\((?1)+\)|\((?1)+\))(?:' . $operators . '(?1))?)+$/';
if (preg_match($regexpToCheckIfMathFormula, $formula)) {
$formula = preg_replace('!pi|π!', 'pi()', $formula);
try {
eval("\$value = $formula;"); // VULNERABLE LINE
// ...
Architectural Flaws
PCRE Stack Overflow & ReDoS (The Immediate Exploit):
The regex definition heavily relies on a recursive pattern (?1)+. In PHP's PCRE engine, deeply nested recursive patterns are processed on the system stack. If an attacker inputs a formula with thousands of nested parentheses or repeating groups, the engine will either trigger a pcre.recursion_limit exhaust (returning false or null) or cause a Segmentation Fault, instantly crashing the PHP process (Denial of Service).
The "Validation-Before-Substitution" Trap:
The regex checks the $formula variable after it has tokenized and reassembled the input string. If any underlying function called during tokenization (like testEntryValue or future updates to getEntryValue) returns or leaks an unexpected string format, the string structure changes.
Complete Trust in eval():
Using eval() as a math parser means the application's security perimeter relies entirely on a single regular expression. History shows that complex regex sanitizers for script evaluation are consistently bypassed via edge-case syntaxes, character encoding tricks, or PCRE engine bugs.
PoC
Scenario A: Remote Denial of Service (Server Crash)
An attacker with rights to create or edit a Bazar form adds a Calc field and injects a deeply nested recursive mathematical structure.
Payload:
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((1+1))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(Multiplied by 2000 to 5000 iterations depending on the server's pcre.recursion_limit and stack configuration).
The PCRE engine runs out of stack memory, leading to an immediate crash of the PHP-FPM worker or Apache process handling the request, rendering the service unavailable.
Scenario B: Logical Bypass to RCE
Because eval() executes raw PHP code, if an attacker successfully fuzzes the recursive pattern or exploits an unpatched vulnerability in the specific PCRE library version installed on the host OS, they can slip a PHP payload through the validation block.
Payload:
abs(1) + system('id')
If a validation bypass occurs, the string evaluates as native PHP, granting the attacker the privileges of the www-data (web server) user, leading to a full host compromise.
Impact
-
Confidentiality: HIGH. Attackers can read sensitive system files (e.g., /etc/passwd, .env configuration files).
-
Integrity: HIGH. Attackers can modify application files, inject backdoors, or alter the database content.
-
Availability: HIGH. Attackers can easily bring down the web service via the ReDoS/Segmentation Fault vector.
Remediation & Mitigation
- Do not use regular expressions to safe-guard eval(). Instead, replace the execution block with a dedicated, safe Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) math parser or an expression language component that cannot execute system context.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| yeswiki/yeswiki | < 4.6.6 |
4.6.6 |
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.
yeswiki/yeswiki Packagist → 4.6.6
- composer
composer require yeswiki/yeswiki:^4.6.6
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1333: Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
- System Configuration: Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
- Implementation: Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.
- Implementation: Limit the length of the input that the regular expression will process.
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9369-69wj-7m2f YesWiki Vulnerable to Authenticated PHP Object Injection in BazarImportAction via unserialize | Critical | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-4pf7-cc4r-g63h YesWiki has Authenticated SQL Injection via ReactionManager | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-r5xw-gcgw-hwp5 YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped `id` Parameter in Bazar Widget HTML Attributes | Medium | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-35f3-pg38-486f YesWiki Vulnerable to Reflected XSS via Unescaped Archived-Revision `time` Parameter in `handlers/page/show.php` | Medium | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-xc7j-3g8q-9vh4 YesWiki has stored XSS in Bazar form-field templates via unescaped field.label / field.hint (|raw('html')) | Medium | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-8f2v-2qhj-gfwg YesWiki: Second-Order SQL Injection in Page Delete API via Unescaped Page Tag (`ApiController::deletePage`) | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-qg78-vmvc-fhjw YesWiki: SQL Injection possible through public Bazar entry-listing APIs via numeric `query`/`queries` filters | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
| GHSA-vw42-752g-5mrp YesWiki has Unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery via ActivityPub `Signature.keyId` | High | Also affects yeswiki/yeswiki |
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