GHSA-r4v5-rwr2-q7r4 CVE-2026-34560
CI4MS: Logs Full Account Takeover for All-Roles & Privilege-Escalation via Stored DOM XSS
- Severity
- 9.1 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.39%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 32.78% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- Fix
0.31.0.0- Upgrade ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms to this version or later
Description
Summary
Vulnerability: Stored DOM Blind XSS via Logs Interface Rendering (Administrative Context Execution)
- Stored Cross-Site Scripting (Blind XSS) via Unsafe Rendering of User-Controlled Logged Data
Description
The application renders user-controlled input unsafely within the logs interface. If any stored XSS payload exists within logged data, it is rendered without proper output encoding.
This issue becomes a Blind XSS scenario because the attacker does not see immediate execution. Instead, the payload is stored within application logs and only executes later when an administrator views the logs page.
For example, accessing /backend/backup/restore/xss-payload-here causes an error that gets logged by the application. If the injected portion contains an XSS payload, it is stored inside the logs without sanitization and later rendered unsafely inside the logs management interface.
When an administrator views the logs page, the stored payload executes automatically in the administrative browser context, leading to stored blind cross-site scripting (Blind XSS).
Affected Functionality
- Application logging mechanism
- Logs storage and retrieval logic
- Logs rendering within administrative interface
- Any endpoint that logs unsanitized user-controlled input
Attack Scenario
- An attacker injects a malicious XSS payload into any user-controlled input that is logged by the application.
- Example: Visit
/backend/backup/restore/<img src=x onerror=alert(document.domain)> - The application throws an error and logs the malicious payload.
- The payload is stored within application logs.
- An administrator views the logs interface.
- The payload executes automatically in the administrator’s browser context.
Any method or endpoint that logs user-controlled input without sanitization will result in the same Blind XSS condition when viewed inside logs management.
Impact
- Persistent Stored Blind XSS
- Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in administrators’ browsers
- Privilege escalation when viewed by administrators
- Full administrator account takeover
- Full compromise of the entire application
Endpoints:
/backend/logs//backend/backup/restore/{payload}- Any other endpoint that logs xss payloads there
Steps To Reproduce (POC)
- Trigger an endpoint that logs user-controlled input, such as:
/backend/backup/restore/<img src=x onerror=alert(document.domain)> - Ensure the request generates an error and the payload is written into application logs
- Navigate to the logs interface as an administrator
- View the logged entry
- Notice the XSS payload executing automatically (Blind XSS)
Remediation
-
Avoid unsafe DOM manipulation methods: Do not use
.html(),innerHTML, or similar sink functions in client-side JavaScript or server-side templating (e.g., PHP). Even when user input flowing into these sinks is not immediately apparent, they can introduce Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities that an attacker may exploit. -
Apply output encoding: Implement HTML entity encoding on all user-controlled data before rendering it in the browser. This helps neutralize potentially malicious input.
-
Implement input sanitization: Ensure that all user-supplied input is properly sanitized before processing or output. Currently, no sanitization mechanisms are in place, which should be addressed as a priority.
-
Enforce security headers and cookie attributes:
- Content Security Policy (CSP): Define and enforce a strict CSP to limit the execution of unauthorized scripts.
- HttpOnly flag: Set the
HttpOnlyattribute on session cookies to prevent client-side script access. - SameSite attribute: Configure the
SameSitecookie attribute to mitigate Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) risks. - Secure flag: Ensure all cookies are transmitted only over HTTPS by enabling the
Secureattribute.
These measures collectively reduce the impact of XSS and help prevent escalation paths such as CSRF via XSS.
Ready Video POC:
https://mega.nz/file/jRN3nDSR#wJCwyFhbeT-OYAwlaTD_7j6wc5wRgz1EGJL0bnuhHxY
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms | < 0.31.0.0 |
0.31.0.0 |
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.
ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms Packagist → 0.31.0.0
- composer
composer require ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms:^0.31.0.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
How to prevent it
- 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 [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
- Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: 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.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
- Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
- Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
- Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
- 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. When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gqr2-7hcg-rchf CI4MS: Stored XSS in Pages Module Content via Broken html_purify Validation Rule | High | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-245j-xjvr-xvm5 CI4MS Fileeditor allows deletion and rename of critical application files due to missing extension allowlist on destructive operations | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-2m69-jmvh-6chr CI4MS: Stored XSS in Blog Content via Broken `html_purify` Validation Rule | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 CI4MS has a Deactivated User Session Bypass (active=0) | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-vgrf-pr28-vf98 CI4MS Vulnerable to Arbitrary Database Table Drop via Theme deleteProcess | Medium | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-fw49-9xq4-gmx6 CI4MS has Unrestricted PHP File Upload via Theme Installation that Leads to Authenticated Remote Code Execution | High | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-xv3r-vr59-95rg CI4MS Theme::upload is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE | Critical | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
| GHSA-xp9f-pvvc-57p4 CI4MS Backup::restore is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE | Critical | Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms |
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