Skip to content

YesWiki: Authenticated (Admin) Server-Side Template Injection to Remote Code Execution via Bazar Semantic Templates

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 2, 2026 in YesWiki/yeswiki • Updated Jul 9, 2026

Package

composer yeswiki/yeswiki (Composer)

Affected versions

< 4.6.6

Patched versions

4.6.6

Description

Summary

YesWiki Bazar contains a stored Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) vulnerability in the semantic template feature that can be escalated to confirmed Remote Code Execution (RCE). An authenticated administrator can place arbitrary Twig expressions into the Semantic template (Twig) field (bn_sem_template), and that content is later executed server-side when public semantic endpoints are requested.

This was first confirmed through a harmless proof payload where {{ 7 * 7 }} was rendered as 49 through the public JSON-LD endpoint. The finding was then further validated locally by storing a Twig payload that invoked a system-level callable, resulting in command execution and an interactive shell on the test machine.

Because the payload is stored in the form configuration and later triggered through a public endpoint, this issue is both persistent and remotely triggerable after an administrator plants the malicious template.

Details

The vulnerable behavior is in the Bazar semantic rendering flow.

The administrator-editable fields:

  • bn_sem_template
  • bn_sem_reverse_template

allow Twig template content to be stored inside a form definition. That content is later rendered by the backend semantic transformer through TemplateEngine::renderFromStringNoEscape(), which passes the user-controlled string into Twig for execution.

Relevant sink:

$json = $this->templateEngine->renderFromStringNoEscape($form['bn_sem_template'], $data);

The rendering helper evaluates the supplied string as a live Twig template:

public function renderFromStringNoEscape(string $templateString, array $data = []): string
{
    $wrapped = '{% autoescape false %}' . $templateString . '{% endautoescape %}';
    return $this->twig->createTemplate($wrapped)->render($data);
}

This is unsafe because administrator-controlled semantic template text is executed as server-side Twig code rather than treated as inert data. In the validated environment, Twig expressions were first confirmed to execute through a harmless arithmetic payload and were then escalated to operating-system-level command execution by invoking a callable through Twig.

The public trigger path used during validation was:

GET /api/forms/2/entries/json-ld

The attack chain is:

  1. An administrator stores malicious Twig code in the semantic template field.
  2. YesWiki saves that payload in the form configuration.
  3. A later request to the public semantic endpoint causes the backend to render and execute the stored Twig.
  4. Because the Twig environment is not adequately constrained, the stored payload can escalate from template execution to system command execution.

PoC

The following steps reproduce the issue on the locally validated YesWiki instance.

Stage 1: Confirm Server-Side Template Execution

  1. Log in to YesWiki as an administrator.
  2. Open Bazar form management.
  3. Edit form ID 2 (Agenda in the validated instance).
  4. Locate the field labeled Semantic template (Twig).
  5. Replace its content with the following harmless payload:
{"proof":"{{ 7 * 7 }}"}
  1. Save the form.
  2. Trigger the public semantic endpoint:
curl -s 'https://target.example/?api/forms/2/entries/json-ld'
  1. Observe that the server returns evaluated Twig output instead of the literal string {{ 7 * 7 }}.

Confirmed response:

{"@context":null,"@id":"https:\/\/target.example\/?api\/fiche\/2","@type":["ldp:Container","ldp:BasicContainer"],"dcterms:title":"Agenda","ldp:contains":[{"proof":"49","id":"https:\/\/target.example\/?TesT2"},{"proof":"49","id":"https:\/\/target.example\/?Bordeaux"}]}

Key execution proof:

"proof":"49"

Stage 2: Confirm Remote Code Execution

After confirming SSTI with the harmless payload above, a second locally controlled payload was stored in the same semantic template field to test whether Twig execution could be escalated to command execution. When the public semantic endpoint was requested, the payload executed on the server and established an interactive shell back to the test listener.

Observed local evidence included:

  • an inbound connection to the attacker's listener
  • an interactive shell prompt on the YesWiki host
  • successful command execution from the shell inside the YesWiki project directory

Observed shell output:

Connection received on 172.31.60.19 60308
khizar@Victus:/mnt/c/Users/khiza/Documents/Codex/2026-05-24/i-am-trying-to-make-a/yeswiki-src$ ls
INSTALL.md
LICENSE
Makefile
README.md
SECURITY.md
actions
cache
codex-admin-login.php
composer.json
composer.lock
custom
docker
docs
files
formatters
handlers
includes
index.php
interwiki.conf
javascripts
lang
package.json
private
robots.txt
setup
styles
templates
tests
themes
tools
vendor
wakka.config.php
wakka.php
yeswicli

This confirms that the issue is not limited to template evaluation or data disclosure. In the validated local environment, the stored Twig payload reached full operating-system-level command execution.

Impact

An authenticated administrator can inject arbitrary Twig expressions into Bazar semantic templates, and those expressions are executed server-side when public semantic endpoints are requested.

In the validated environment, this leads to confirmed Remote Code Execution. An attacker with administrator access can:

  • execute arbitrary Twig expressions on the server
  • store a persistent payload in form configuration
  • have that payload triggered later by unauthenticated requests to public semantic endpoints
  • execute operating-system commands on the host
  • gain interactive shell access to the underlying server
  • pivot from application-level administration to full server compromise

This breaks the expected trust boundary between application administration and host-level execution. In practical terms, YesWiki administrator privileges become sufficient to obtain command execution on the server in affected deployments.

References

@mrflos mrflos published to YesWiki/yeswiki Jun 2, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 9, 2026
Reviewed Jul 9, 2026
Last updated Jul 9, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(29th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine

The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-52762

GHSA ID

GHSA-65p8-9433-jpcp

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.