Skip to content

FrankenPHP's unicode case-folding length expansion causes incorrect split_path index (SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO confusion) in FrankenPHP

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 12, 2026 in php/frankenphp • Updated Feb 12, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/dunglas/frankenphp (Go)

Affected versions

< 1.11.2

Patched versions

1.11.2

Description

Summary

FrankenPHP’s CGI path splitting logic improperly handles Unicode characters during case conversion. The logic computes the split index (for finding .php) on a lowercased copy of the request path but applies that byte index to the original path.

Because strings.ToLower() in Go can increase the byte length of certain UTF-8 characters (e.g., Ⱥ expands when lowercased), the computed index may not align with the correct position in the original string. This results in an incorrect SCRIPT_NAME and SCRIPT_FILENAME, potentially causing FrankenPHP to execute a file other than the one intended by the URI.

Details

The vulnerability resides in the splitPos() function and its usage within splitCgiPath(). The logic attempts to find the script extension (e.g., .php) in a case-insensitive manner by lowercasing the path:

lowerPath := strings.ToLower(path)
idx := strings.Index(lowerPath, strings.ToLower(split))
return idx + len(split)

The issue is that the returned idx represents a byte offset within lowerPath. However, splitCgiPath() uses this index to slice the original path:

fc.docURI = path[:splitPos]
fc.pathInfo = path[splitPos:]
fc.scriptName = strings.TrimSuffix(path, fc.pathInfo)
fc.scriptFilename = sanitizedPathJoin(fc.documentRoot, fc.scriptName)

This logic relies on the assumption that len(strings.ToLower(path)) == len(path). This assumption is false for certain Unicode characters. For example, the character Ⱥ (U+023A) requires 2 bytes in UTF-8 (0xC8 0xBA), but its lowercase equivalent (U+2C65) requires 3 bytes (0xE2 0xB1 0xA5).

If the path contains such characters before the .php extension, the index calculated on lowerPath will be larger than the corresponding visual point in the original path. When applied to the original path, the split occurs at the wrong byte offset. This can cause the server to treat a larger portion of the path as the script name, effectively allowing an attacker to manipulate SCRIPT_FILENAME.

PoC

The following Go program demonstrates the discrepancy between the byte index in the lowercased string versus the original string.

  1. Save the following as poc.go:
package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "strings"
)

func splitPos(path string, split string) int {
    lowerPath := strings.ToLower(path)
    idx := strings.Index(lowerPath, strings.ToLower(split))
    if idx < 0 {
        return -1
    }
    return idx + len(split)
}

func main() {
    // U+023A: Ⱥ (UTF-8: C8 BA). Lowercase is ⱥ (UTF-8: E2 B1 A5), longer in bytes.
    // We construct a path where the byte expansion shifts the index.
    path := "/ȺȺȺȺshell.php.txt.php"
    split := ".php"

    pos := splitPos(path, split)

    fmt.Printf("orig bytes=%d\n", len(path))
    fmt.Printf("lower bytes=%d\n", len(strings.ToLower(path)))
    fmt.Printf("splitPos=%d\n", pos)

    // Current Unsafe Behavior:
    fmt.Printf("orig[:pos] (Calculated Script)=%q\n", path[:pos])
    fmt.Printf("orig[pos:] (Calculated PathInfo)=%q\n", path[pos:])

    // Expected Safe Behavior:
    want := strings.Index(path, split) + len(split)
    fmt.Printf("expected splitPos=%d\n", want)
    fmt.Printf("expected orig[:]=%q\n", path[:want])
}
  1. Run the PoC:
go run poc.go
  1. Output:
orig bytes=26
lower bytes=30
splitPos=22
orig[:pos]="/ȺȺȺȺshell.php.txt"
orig[pos:]=".php"
expected splitPos=18
expected orig[:]="/ȺȺȺȺshell.php"

In this example, FrankenPHP would identify /ȺȺȺȺshell.php.txt as the PHP script to execute, ignoring the fact that the actual file extension in the file system might be .txt.

Impact*

This is a Security Boundary Bypass and Path Confusion vulnerability.

In setups where users can upload files (e.g., avatars, text files) that are stored within the document root or a reachable path, an attacker can upload a file containing malicious PHP code with a safe extension (e.g., payload.txt). By crafting a request with specific Unicode characters, the attacker can force FrankenPHP to calculate the SCRIPT_FILENAME as ending in payload.txt, while the request appears to contain .php to the internal router logic.

This results in the execution of non-PHP files as PHP scripts, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE).

Patched Versions

  • This issue is fixed in FrankenPHP version 1.11.2.

Workarounds

  • Ensure that user-uploaded files are stored outside of the public document root.
  • Implement strict WAF rules to reject requests containing specific multi-byte Unicode characters in the URL path if an upgrade is not immediately possible.

References

@dunglas dunglas published to php/frankenphp Feb 12, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 12, 2026
Reviewed Feb 12, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 12, 2026
Last updated Feb 12, 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 None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
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:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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.
(12th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize

The product validates input before it is canonicalized, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the canonicalization step. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-24895

GHSA ID

GHSA-g966-83w7-6w38

Source code

Credits

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