CVE-2026-41663VulnerabilityPublished 29 Apr 2026Updated 8 May 2026

admidio/admidio · Admidio has CSRF on Admin Preferences that Triggers Unauthorized Backup, .htaccess Write, and Email Send

Affects admidio/admidioSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-41663· Low 3.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low : upgrade to 5.0.9 when convenient.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Patch: Available – fixed in 5.0.9

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade admidio/admidio to 5.0.9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Packagistadmidio/admidio	Affected <5.0.9	Fixed in 5.0.9

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

## Summary Several administrative operations in Admidio's preferences module (database backup, test email, htaccess generation) fire via GET requests with no CSRF token validation. Because `SameSite=Lax` cookies travel with top-level GET navigations, an attacker forces an authenticated admin to trigger these actions from a malicious page. ## Details In `modules/preferences.php`, the `backup`, `test_email`, and `htaccess` modes accept GET parameters with no CSRF token check: ```php // modules/preferences.php - backup mode case 'backup': // Creates full database dump and serves as download // No CSRF token validation $backupFile = $gDb->backup(); // ... sends file to client break; case 'test_email': // Sends test email from the server // No CSRF token validation break; case 'htaccess': // Writes .htaccess file to disk // No CSRF token validation break; ``` The `save` mode in the same file validates CSRF via `getFormObject()`, confirming the developers intended CSRF protection but did not apply it to these other modes. Because these are GET requests, `SameSite=Lax` browsers include session cookies on top-level cross-origin navigations, making CSRF exploitation trivial. ## Proof of Concept Simplified attacker page (`csrf.html` hosted on attacker origin): ```html <html> <body> <h1>Loading...</h1>  <script>window.location = 'https://target-admidio.example.com/adm_program/modules/preferences.php?mode=backup';</script> </body> </html> ``` When an administrator visits this page, the browser navigates to the Admidio backup URL with full session cookies. The server generates a database dump and serves it as a download to the victim's browser. Note: the backup downloads to the victim's machine, not to the attacker. The attacker cannot read the response cross-origin. For `htaccess` mode, the CSRF overwrites the `.htaccess` file on the server, disrupting the application. For `test_email` mode, it triggers email sends from the server, which an attacker can abuse for spam or to probe internal email infrastructure. ## Impact An attacker tricks an Admidio administrator into visiting a malicious page that triggers state-changing operations on the server: - **Backup creation**: forces the server to generate a full database dump. The backup downloads to the victim's browser, not to the attacker. However, repeated backup triggers can cause disk I/O and storage pressure on the server. - **htaccess modification**: overwrites the server's `.htaccess` file, breaking URL routing or disabling security headers. - **Test email**: fires email sends from the server, usable as a spam relay or to probe internal mail configuration. The core issue is that state-changing operations run via unprotected GET requests. The victim only needs to visit a single attacker-controlled page while logged in. ## Recommended Fix 1. Change `backup`, `test_email`, and `htaccess` operations to require POST requests. 2. Add CSRF token validation using the existing `getFormObject()` mechanism. 3. As defense in depth, set `SameSite=Strict` on session cookies or add a confirmation step for destructive operations like database backup. --- *Found by [aisafe.io](https://aisafe.io)*

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats