VulnerabilityPublished 5 Aug 2026Updated 10 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-71294: Cotonti CMS's Comments plugin deserializes user-supplied data without restricting the classes that

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 5 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 3 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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.

ghsa-rm37-v7mc-6795

What to do

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is available, restrict write access to comments to trusted users only and consider disabling the Comments plugin if feasible. Monitor for updates from Cotonti CMS regarding patches or official mitigations. Avoid using unserialize() on untrusted data or apply allowed_classes restrictions to prevent unsafe object instantiation.

Description

Cotonti CMS's Comments plugin deserializes user-supplied data without restricting the classes that may be instantiated. In plugins/comments/controllers/actions/CreateAction.php, a `ci` POST parameter obtained via `cot_import('ci', 'P', 'TXT')` (trim-only sanitization) is passed to `unserialize(base64_decode($ci))` with no `allowed_classes` restriction, reachable by any member with write access to comments (the default `Auth_members => 'RW'` setting in plugins/comments/comments.setup.php). In plugins/comments/controllers/actions/EditAction.php, a `cb` parameter is similarly deserialized via `unserialize(base64_decode($this->comeback))` in prepareComeBack(), reachable by any member editing their own comment. Because unserialize() is called without allowed_classes, an attacker can construct a serialized PHP object of any class loaded by Cotonti (a PHP Object Injection primitive). This was demonstrated in practice using Cotonti's own MySQL_cache class: a crafted serialized MySQL_cache object, once deserialized and later garbage-collected, triggers its __destruct()->flush() chain, causing an attacker-controlled INSERT INTO cot_cache with attacker-chosen row values — confirming genuine POP-chain exploitation, with further impact (including potential RCE) contingent on other gadget chains available in a given Cotonti installation's loaded classes. A third sink in DeleteAction.php contains the identical unserialize() pattern but is gated behind an admin-only authorization check and is not reachable by ordinary members.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows attackers with write access to comments to perform PHP Object Injection, leading to arbitrary object instantiation. This can cause attacker-controlled database inserts and potentially remote code execution depending on the presence of other gadget chains in the Cotonti installation. Confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts are high, with the ability to insert arbitrary data and possibly execute code. The vulnerability does not require user interaction but does require privileges to write comments (default setting).

Summary

The vulnerability in Cotonti CMS's Comments plugin arises from deserializing base64-decoded user input without specifying allowed classes, enabling PHP Object Injection (CWE-502). Specifically, the 'ci' POST parameter in CreateAction.php and the 'cb' parameter in EditAction.php are deserialized unsafely. Attackers with write access to comments can craft serialized objects of any loaded class, demonstrated with the MySQL_cache class to trigger a __destruct()->flush() chain that inserts attacker-controlled data into the cot_cache database table. This confirms a practical POP (Property Oriented Programming) chain exploitation. The DeleteAction.php sink is restricted to admins and thus not exploitable by regular members. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.6 (high severity) with network attack vector, low attack complexity, privileges required, no user interaction, and high confidentiality impact.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Aug 2026, 19:11 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats