Skip to content

CI4MS: Profile & User Management Full Account Takeover for All-Roles & Privilege-Escalation via Stored DOM XSS

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 2, 2026 in ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms • Updated Apr 3, 2026

Package

composer ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms (Composer)

Affected versions

<= 0.28.6.0

Patched versions

31.0.0.0

Description

Summary

Vulnerability 1: Stored DOM XSS via Profile Name Update (Persistent Payload Injection)

  • Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Unsanitized User Name in Profile Management

Description

The application fails to properly sanitize user-controlled input when users update their profile name (e.g., full name / username). An attacker can inject a malicious JavaScript payload into their profile name, which is then stored server-side.

This stored payload is later rendered unsafely in multiple application views without proper output encoding, leading to stored cross-site scripting (XSS).

Affected Functionality

  • Profile name / full name update functionality (both the 2 user inputs)
  • User profile storage and retrieval logic

Attack Scenario

  • An attacker updates their profile name to include a malicious XSS payload.
  • The application stores this value without sanitization or encoding.
  • The payload persists and executes whenever the name is rendered in affected views.

Impact

  • Persistent Stored XSS
  • Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in victims’ browsers
  • Foundation for privilege escalation and account takeover when viewed by privileged users & normal ones across blogs and public facing pages that show user profiles full names

Endpoint: /backend/users/profile/

Vulnerability 2: Stored XSS via User Name Rendering Across Multiple Endpoints (Privilege Escalation)

(Required for the chain)

  • Stored XSS via Unsafe Rendering of User Names Across Administrative and Public Interfaces

Description

User-controlled profile fields (specifically the username / full name) are rendered unsafely across multiple application endpoints, including administrative and content-related interfaces. The application fails to apply proper output encoding when displaying these values.

When an administrator accesses affected pages, the stored XSS payload executes in the administrator’s browser context, resulting in administrative privilege escalation and potential full admin account takeover.

This issue is not limited to a single endpoint and affects all areas where the username is rendered, including but not limited to:

  • User management interfaces
  • Blog pages
  • Other content or UI components displaying usernames

Attack Scenario

  • Attacker injects a malicious payload via the profile name update functionality.
  • The payload is stored persistently.
  • An administrator views the user management page or any affected interface.
  • The payload executes automatically in the admin’s browser.
  • Attacker hijacks the admin session, performs privileged actions, or fully compromises the admin account.

Impact

  • Stored XSS
  • Administrative privilege escalation
  • Full admin account takeover (including other roles)
  • Full compromise of the entire application

Endpoint Example: /backend/users/ of User Management Page

Steps To Reproduce (POC)

  1. Go to Profile Management page of the User
  2. In the 2 user inputs of the Full Name, put in any field of them a XSS Payload such as:
    <img src=x onerror=alert(document.domain)>
  3. Save the edit
  4. Go to User Management page as an Admin or any other role
  5. Notice the XSS alert popping up that confirms it
  6. Other endpoints aswell can execute such as blogs in the public facing one

Recommended Remediation

  1. Eliminate Unsafe DOM Sinks: Remove all usage of .html(), innerHTML, and similar unsafe DOM manipulation methods throughout the application. These sinks should be replaced with safe alternatives such as .text() or textContent, which do not interpret HTML markup.

  2. Implement Output Encoding: Apply context-appropriate HTML entity encoding to all user-controlled data before rendering it in the DOM. This ensures that any special characters (e.g., <, >, ", ') are rendered as literal text rather than interpreted as executable markup.

  3. Implement Server-Side Input Sanitization: Enforce strict input validation and sanitization on all user-controlled fields — particularly the profile name fields — at the server level before storing values in the database. Currently, no sanitization is applied to these inputs.

  4. Apply Defense in Depth: Even in cases where user input does not appear to flow directly into a dangerous sink, it should still be treated as untrusted. Attackers can and will leverage indirect data flows to exploit the application. A layered approach combining input validation, output encoding, and Content Security Policy (CSP) headers is strongly recommended.

Ready Video POC:

https://mega.nz/file/iEVEyT4Y#f046o6ZwYBfS1kK0HNKOCFm6tL_8_SbLtWWKC1hYC4M

References

@bertugfahriozer bertugfahriozer published to ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms Apr 2, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Apr 3, 2026
Reviewed Apr 3, 2026
Last updated Apr 3, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-34989

GHSA ID

GHSA-vr2g-rhm5-q4jr

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.