Skip to content

GHSA-vg3j-hpm9-8v5v CVE-2026-29113

Craft CMS has a potential information disclosure vulnerability in preview tokens

Medium Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.16% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-287 Improper Authentication
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
4.17.3
Upgrade craftcms/cms to this version or later

Description

Summary

Craft CMS has a CSRF issue in the preview token endpoint at /actions/preview/create-token. The endpoint accepts an attacker-supplied previewToken.

Because the action does not require POST and does not enforce a CSRF token, an attacker can force a logged-in victim editor to mint a preview token chosen by the attacker.

That token can then be used by the attacker (without authentication) to access previewed/unpublished content tied to the victim’s authorized preview scope.


Preconditions

  • Victim is logged in to Craft control panel.
  • Victim has active preview authorization in session for target content (e.g., opened/edited an entry).
  • The attacker must know the target’s canonicalId and public URL path of that entry.

1) Attacker prepares a fixed token

Use any 32-character value, for example:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

2) CSRF victim into minting that token

Send the victim a link (or top-level redirect) such as:

https://TARGET/actions/preview/create-token?elementType=craft%5Celements%5CEntry&canonicalId=123&siteId=1&previewToken=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa&redirect=https%3A%2F%2FTARGET%2F

If the victim is logged in and authorized for previewElement:123, Craft creates that exact token.

3) Attacker accesses preview content unauthenticated

curl -i 'https://TARGET/news/known-entry-slug?token=aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Expected vulnerable behavior:

  • Response renders preview/unpublished state (draft/provisional context), not just normal public content.

Impact

  • CSRF-based minting of attacker-known preview tokens.
  • Unauthorized access to draft/provisional/revision content via token replay.
  • Stealthy one-click exploitation against logged-in editors/admins.
  • No dependency on forwarded-host poisoning.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
craftcms/cms
>= 4.0.0-RC1, < 4.17.3
4.17.3
craftcms/cms
>= 5.0.0-RC1, < 5.9.7
5.9.7

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.

craftcms/cms Packagist → 4.17.3

composer
composer require craftcms/cms:^4.17.3

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-287: Improper Authentication

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

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]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7vrx-9684-xrf2
Craft CMS stores arbitrary content provided by unauthenticated users in session files
Medium Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-f3gw-9ww9-jmc3
Craft CMS Allows Remote Code Execution
Critical Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-x684-96hh-833x
Craft CMS has a potential RCE with a compromised security key
High Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-2p6p-9rc9-62j9
Craft CMS has potential RCE when PHP `register_argc_argv` config setting is enabled
Critical Known exploited Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-wg23-69c2-gjc8
Craft CMS: Passkey login accepts replayed WebAuthn assertions
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-957r-qf9p-67xw
Craft CMS: Arbitrary file read via SplFileObject in non-sandboxed template contexts
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-596p-6jv8-775v
Craft CMS: Authenticated leak of secret environment variables
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
GHSA-xxpx-f366-4xpq
Craft CMS: Authorization bypass: view-only Categories user can modify category structure via structures/move-element
Medium Also affects craftcms/cms
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