Skip to content

GHSA-wr9h-4r83-f4v6 CVE-2026-54002

Kirby: Cross-site scripting (XSS) from incomplete HTML/XML sanitization in `Dom::sanitize()`

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.55%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.83% 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')
CWE-87 Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax
Fix
4.9.4
Upgrade getkirby/cms to this version or later

Description

TL;DR

This vulnerability affects Kirby sites and plugins that use the writer or list fields or that use $dom->sanitize(), Sane::sanitize(), Sane\Html::sanitize(), Sane\Svg::sanitize(), Sane\Xml::sanitize(), Sane::sanitizeFile() or $file->sanitizeContents() with untrusted input.

It was possible to inject malicious markup as children of an unknown HTML/XML tag, which would then be passed through Dom::sanitize() without being correctly sanitized according to the provided sanitization rules, causing a cross-site scripting (XSS) risk.

This vulnerability is of high severity for affected sites.

The default file upload protection is not affected, so sites that only validate uploaded files are not exposed to this vulnerability. The vulnerability can only be exploited by authenticated users.


Introduction

Cross-site scripting (XSS) is a type of vulnerability that allows executing any kind of JavaScript code inside the site frontend or Panel session of the same or other users. In the Panel, a harmful script can, for example, trigger requests to Kirby's API with the permissions of the victim.

In a stored XSS attack, the malicious payload is saved into the content data and has the potential to affect other users or site visitors.

Such vulnerabilities are critical if you might have potential attackers in your group of authenticated Panel users. They can escalate their privileges if they get access to the Panel session of an admin user. Depending on your site, other JavaScript-powered attacks are possible.

A specific class of stored XSS is auto-firing, meaning the maliciously injected JavaScript code is executed by the browser when the page loads without the victim having to perform a specific action.

Affected components

The Dom::sanitize() method allows removing unwanted or malicious elements or attributes from DOM documents (which includes HTML, SVG or arbitrary XML data). Sanitized content is supposed to be protected against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks by removing their impact from untrusted content input.

Dom::sanitize() internally checks all nodes and attributes of the DOM document. It removes nodes, attributes, processing instructions, doctypes and namespaces that are not allowed according to the provided configuration. Nodes with tags that have been explicitly blocklisted are removed together with their children. Nodes with explicitly allowlisted tags are kept. If a tag is neither allowlisted nor blocklisted, nodes with that tag are unwrapped by Dom::unwrap() (meaning the children are kept).

Dom::sanitize() is used in the following components:

  • The writer field sanitizes all entered content on the backend before it is saved to the content file.
  • The list field performs the same sanitization as the writer field since Kirby 5.4.1 (and in backported versions since Kirby 4.9.1).
  • The Kirby\Sane class package includes higher-level classes Sane\Html, Sane\Svg and Sane\Xml that all rely on DOM sanitization.
  • These classes are in turn also used by Sane::sanitizeFile() and $file->sanitizeContents().
  • Any of the mentioned methods could also be used in site or plugin code, for example in a file.create:before hook that cleans uploaded SVG/HTML files.

Only the sanitization path (returning a cleaned document) is affected. The validation path is not affected by this vulnerability. Kirby's default upload protection performs validation, so malicious SVG or HTML uploads continue to be rejected.

Impact

In affected releases, Dom::sanitize() did not sanitize nodes that had been unwrapped from their parent node. The affected child nodes would be copied into the resulting sanitized document without being sanitized.

An authenticated Panel user who can edit a writer or list field can store markup that survives sanitization and executes as JavaScript when the content is rendered, both in the Panel and on the site frontend. This allows a lower-privileged editor to run scripts in the context of higher-privileged users (for example admins) who view the content ("stored XSS"). Where a plugin or custom code cleans uploaded SVG/HTML with the Sane API, the same flaw leaves active content in the stored file, which executes when the file is served.

Patches

The problem has been patched in Kirby 4.9.4 and Kirby 5.4.4. Please update to one of these or a later version to fix the vulnerability.

In all of the mentioned releases, Dom::unwrap() now moves the allowed children to the parent instead of cloning them, so the exact nodes remain in the document and are covered by the sanitization pass.

Note that content that was passed through the sanitizer and stored as field content before the patch may contain malicious content that was not properly sanitized due to the vulnerable code. If you cannot rule out attackers under the authenticated users of a security-critical site, we advise reviewing the content for possible attacks or to re-sanitize all content of affected fields.

Credits

Thanks to Shafiq Aiman (@shafiqaimanx) for responsibly reporting the identified issue.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
getkirby/cms
< 4.9.4
4.9.4
getkirby/cms
>= 5.0.0-alpha.1, < 5.4.4
5.4.4

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.

getkirby/cms Packagist → 4.9.4

composer
composer require getkirby/cms:^4.9.4

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

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

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

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.

CWE-87: Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controlled input for alternate script syntax.

How to prevent it
  • Implementation: Resolve all input to absolute or canonical representations before processing.
  • Implementation: Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including tag attributes, 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. We often encounter 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.
  • 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9vx2-j98c-p72w
Kirby: Access to image files and limited access to JSON files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-6j4c-mgqr-qv76
Kirby: Access to image files outside of the site root via path traversal in the media handling
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-67mx-6wf2-92xp
Kirby: File upload permissions are not checked during processing of chunk data
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-rf2p-vh74-7vvh
Kirby: System path exposure from error messages in the REST API
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-r3w8-2c5r-h9j9
Kirby: `pages.access` permission is not checked in the `site/find` REST API route
High Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-89cp-7p28-jffg
Kirby: Access to files of top-level drafts is not protected by permissions
Medium Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-whxw-24jc-cwmv
Kirby: External Initialization of the Panel on reverse proxy setups with the `Forwarded` header
Critical Also affects getkirby/cms
GHSA-4v4h-m2qq-ppgw
Kirby: Request header injection in `Http\Remote`
Medium Also affects getkirby/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