GHSA-3M9M-24VH-39WX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-14 23:35 – Updated: 2026-04-14 23:35
VLAI?
Summary
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Craft CMS with Asset Uploads Mutations
Details

Required Permissions

The exploitation requires a few permissions to be enabled in the used GraphQL schema:

  • "Edit assets in the volume"
  • "Create assets in the volume"

Details

The implementation fails to restrict the URL Scheme. While the application is intended to "upload assets", there is no whitelist forcing http or https. This allows attackers to use the Gopher protocol to wrap raw TCP commands.

Impact: Combined with the DWORD bypass, an attacker can hit internal services without triggering any "127.0.0.1" string-matching filters.

Example Payload: gopher://2130706433:6379/_FLUSHALL (Targets local Redis via DWORD).

Remediation Strategy

To prevent mathematical IP obfuscation, the application must normalize the hostname before validation.

Severity ?
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.9.14"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "craftcms/cms"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "5.0.0-RC1"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "5.9.15"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.17.8"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Packagist",
        "name": "craftcms/cms"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "4.0.0-RC1"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.17.9"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-14T23:35:16Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Required Permissions\n\nThe exploitation requires a few permissions to be enabled in the used GraphQL schema:\n\n* \"Edit assets in the \u003cVolumeName\u003e volume\"\n* \"Create assets in the \u003cVolumeName\u003e volume\"\n\n## Details\n\nThe implementation fails to restrict the URL Scheme. While the application is intended to \"upload assets\", there is no whitelist forcing `http` or `https`. This allows attackers to use the Gopher protocol to wrap raw TCP commands.\n\n**Impact:** Combined with the DWORD bypass, an attacker can hit internal services without triggering any \"127.0.0.1\" string-matching filters.\n\n**Example Payload:** gopher://2130706433:6379/_FLUSHALL (Targets local Redis via DWORD).\n\n**Remediation Strategy**\n\nTo prevent mathematical IP obfuscation, the application must normalize the hostname before validation.",
  "id": "GHSA-3m9m-24vh-39wx",
  "modified": "2026-04-14T23:35:16Z",
  "published": "2026-04-14T23:35:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/security/advisories/GHSA-3m9m-24vh-39wx"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms/commit/d20aecfaa0eae076c4154be3b17e1f9fa05ce46f"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/craftcms/cms"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Craft CMS with Asset Uploads Mutations"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.