Skip to content

GHSA-w4qq-74h6-58wq CVE-2026-46337

AVideo: Unauthenticated Arbitrary Image Read via Path Traversal in `view/img/image404Raw.php`

Medium Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.46%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 39.54% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
CWE-284 Improper Access Control
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Summary

The endpoint requires no authentication. An unauthenticated remote attacker can read arbitrary image files anywhere on disk that the PHP user can open — including private user-profile photos that the application's normal serving wrappers gate behind ACLs, admin-uploaded thumbnails, encrypted-video poster frames, and image content under sibling-app directories reachable via .. traversal.

Details

view/img/image404Raw.php reads the image GET parameter and joins it directly into a filesystem path served via readfile(). view/img/image404Raw.php (full file, current master @ 0dbadbcaaa1b415c7db078a72dc4b26d9fac0485):

<?php

// Fetch requested image URL
$imageURL = !empty($_GET['image']) ? $_GET['image'] : $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"];
$rootDir = dirname(__FILE__) . '/../../';
if ($imageURL == 'favicon.ico') {
    $imgLocalFile = "{$rootDir}/videos/{$imageURL}";
} else {
    $imgLocalFile = "{$rootDir}/{$imageURL}";   // ← attacker-controlled
}

if (file_exists($imgLocalFile)) {
    $imageInfo = getimagesize($imgLocalFile);   // ← format gate
    if (empty($imageInfo)) {
        die('not image');
    }
    // …extension → Content-Type mapping…
    header("HTTP/1.0 200 OK");
    header('Content-Type: ' . $type);
    header('Content-Length: ' . filesize($imgLocalFile));
    readfile($imgLocalFile);   // ← exfil bytes
    exit;
}

Issues:

  1. No authentication. The file is reachable via direct GET; no require of globals.php, no session check, no API-key gate.
  2. No basename / realpath / prefix containment. $_GET['image'] is concatenated into $imgLocalFile with no .. filtering, no realpath() resolution, no allowlist check against the intended view/img/ directory.
  3. getimagesize() is a magic-bytes check, not a path constraint. Any file on disk whose first bytes match a recognized image format (FFD8FF JPEG, 89504E47 PNG, 474946 GIF, 52494646…57454250 WebP) passes the gate — including images stored outside any ACL'd area of the application.
  4. $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] fallback when image is empty widens the attack surface (path components in the URI itself land in $imgLocalFile).

Re-verified pre-submission on 2026-05-13 against view/img/image404Raw.php blob SHA c670b0faff4fbea1fd0508f179956975477d4340 — unsafe shape unchanged since first discovery on 2026-05-12.

Recommended fix — three layered checks, any one alone is insufficient:

// view/img/image404Raw.php — proposed fix
<?php

$imageURL = !empty($_GET['image']) ? $_GET['image'] : '';
if ($imageURL === '') {
    http_response_code(400);
    exit('bad request');
}

// 1. Reject any path-traversal segment outright.
if (strpos($imageURL, '..') !== false
    || strpos($imageURL, "\0") !== false
    || strpos($imageURL, '://') !== false) {
    http_response_code(400);
    exit('bad request');
}

// 2. Resolve to a real path and verify prefix containment under the
//    intended image directory.
$rootDir = realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../../');
$imgLocalFile = realpath($rootDir . '/' . $imageURL);
if ($imgLocalFile === false
    || (strpos($imgLocalFile, $rootDir . '/videos/') !== 0
        && strpos($imgLocalFile, $rootDir . '/view/img/') !== 0)) {
    http_response_code(404);
    exit('not found');
}

// 3. Existing getimagesize() check stays as defense-in-depth.
if (!is_file($imgLocalFile)) {
    http_response_code(404);
    exit('not found');
}
$imageInfo = @getimagesize($imgLocalFile);
if (empty($imageInfo)) {
    http_response_code(404);
    exit('not image');
}

// …rest of the original Content-Type + readfile() flow unchanged…

Drop the $_SERVER["REQUEST_URI"] fallback entirely; if no image parameter is provided, return 400.

PoC

Discovery probe — any HTTP client, no authentication, no cookies:

GET /view/img/image404Raw.php?image=../videos/userPhoto/photo1.jpg HTTP/1.1
Host: avideo.example.com

If videos/userPhoto/photo1.jpg exists on the server, the response is the raw image bytes (HTTP 200, Content-Type: image/jpeg). The application's normal user-photo serving wrapper (which can gate by session / channel ownership) is bypassed entirely.

Cross-directory probe — read images outside the AVideo install root:

GET /view/img/image404Raw.php?image=../../../var/www/other-app/uploads/users/admin.jpg HTTP/1.1
Host: avideo.example.com

If the PHP user has read access to a sibling app's image directory, those files are exfiltrable too.

Enumeration — iterate over predictable numeric IDs:

GET /view/img/image404Raw.php?image=../videos/userPhoto/photo1.jpg
GET /view/img/image404Raw.php?image=../videos/userPhoto/photo2.jpg
GET /view/img/image404Raw.php?image=../videos/userPhoto/photo3.jpg
...

…to harvest all profile images regardless of the application's intended privacy controls.

Impact

Path traversal → arbitrary image read (CWE-22 + CWE-284). Affects any AVideo deployment running master through commit 0dbadbca and likely every release on the supported branches. The attacker:

  1. Bypasses the application's image-content ACLs. Profile photos under videos/userPhoto/ and admin-uploaded private thumbnails that AVideo's normal image-serving wrappers gate by session / channel ownership become readable to any anonymous internet user.
  2. Reads images stored outside the AVideo install root. On shared-hosting / multi-tenant deployments, .. traversal lets the attacker page into sibling-app upload directories — anywhere the PHP user has read access on disk and the target file's first bytes form a valid image header.
  3. Enables enumeration at scale. Numeric ID schemes (photo1.jpg, photo2.jpg, …) and predictable filenames let an attacker harvest every private image on a deployment without detection (each request looks like a single 200-image-OK to the web log).

Because the read primitive is restricted to image-magic-bytes files, there is no source-code or credential exfiltration via this primitive alone — but the privacy / GDPR exposure is substantial on any deployment that hosts user-uploaded photos. CVSS 5.3 (Medium) reflects the limited but real confidentiality impact; many operators will rate this higher because the leaked content is user-private by intent.

This is not a silent-fix disclosure — the bug is still present on current master at submission time; the maintainer is being notified of a previously-unknown issue.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
WWBN/AVideo
<= 29.0
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

Weakness

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

How to prevent it
  • 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 validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
  • 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].
  • 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].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
  • 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. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
  • 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.

CWE-284: Improper Access Control

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • 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. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7cqp-7cfv-6c3q
AVideo Meet plugin: anonymous-to-admin stored XSS via unescaped participant User-Agent in getMeetInfo.json.php Participants panel
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wc3f-xc32-435f
AVideo has an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33482: sanitizeFFmpegCommand still allows a single '&' (background operator), giving OS command execution at the same execAsync sh -c sink
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw
AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-wf69-r4mx-43rr
AVideo Vulnerable to Unauthenticated .env File Exposure via Official Docker Compose Configuration
High Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8j8m-p79x-g4jm
AVideo's Privilege Escalation via Unguarded Permission Parameters in signUp API Allows Self-Granting Upload/Stream/Meet Permissions
Medium Also affects wwbn/avideo
GHSA-8whc-2wmv-ww35
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Stored DOM Cross-Site Scripting via Per-Client Metadata Broadcast in YPTSocket Plugin
Critical Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-66q5-cj5g-wrfx
WWBN AVideo: Stored XSS via Hostile YouTube Video Title in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Section
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
GHSA-hgjh-6wj8-gcgf
WWBN AVideo: Unauthenticated Reflected XSS via $_GET['search'] in AVideo YouTubeAPI Gallery Pagination
Medium Also affects WWBN/AVideo
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