CVE-2024-26450VulnerabilityPublished 28 Feb 2024Updated 4 Dec 2024

CVE-2024-26450: Piwigo · n/a

Affects PiwigoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 14.2.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 14.2.0

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Feb 2024
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 2026-10-25.

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 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 piwigo/Piwigo to 14.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubpiwigo/Piwigo`pkg:github/piwigo/Piwigo`Other threats	Affected <14.2.0	Fixed in 14.2.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-26450, organizations should immediately upgrade Piwigo to version 14.2.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until patching is possible, administrators should restrict access to the dashboard using IP whitelisting or VPNs to reduce exposure. Implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers can help limit the impact of stored XSS by restricting script execution sources. Enforce multi-factor authentication for all admin accounts to reduce the risk of session hijacking. Educate administrators to avoid clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted sites while logged into the Piwigo admin interface. Regularly audit web server directories for unauthorized PHP files and monitor logs for unusual activity indicating web shell usage. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block CSRF and XSS attack patterns. Finally, conduct security assessments and penetration tests focusing on chained web vulnerabilities to identify and remediate similar risks.

Description

An issue exists within Piwigo before v.14.2.0 allowing a malicious user to take over the application. This exploit involves chaining a Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability to issue a Stored Cross Site Scripting payload stored within an Admin user's dashboard, executing remote JavaScript. This can be used to upload a new PHP file under an administrator and directly call that file from the victim's instance to connect back to a malicious listener.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-26450 is the potential full compromise of Piwigo installations running vulnerable versions. Successful exploitation allows attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server by uploading and invoking a PHP web shell. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive images and data stored within the gallery, defacement, data theft, or pivoting to other internal systems. Since Piwigo is often used by organizations and individuals to manage photo collections, the breach could result in privacy violations and reputational damage. The attack requires an administrator to interact with a malicious link or page, which may limit widespread exploitation but remains a significant risk in targeted attacks. The vulnerability does not affect availability directly but compromises confidentiality and integrity of the system. Organizations with publicly accessible Piwigo instances are at higher risk, especially if administrative users are less security-aware or if multi-factor authentication is not enforced.

Summary

CVE-2024-26450 is a vulnerability identified in Piwigo, an open-source photo gallery software, affecting all versions prior to 14.2.0. The issue arises from the combination of two web security flaws: Cross Site Request Forgery (CWE-352) and Stored Cross Site Scripting (CWE-79). An attacker crafts a malicious request that, when an administrator visits their dashboard, triggers the stored XSS payload. This JavaScript executes with admin privileges in the browser, enabling the attacker to perform unauthorized actions such as uploading a PHP file (web shell) to the server. Once uploaded, the attacker can remotely invoke this PHP file to gain persistent remote code execution on the server hosting Piwigo. The vulnerability does not require prior authentication but does require the targeted admin to interact with the malicious payload (user interaction). The CVSS v3.1 base score is 5.4 (medium), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, but requiring user interaction, and limited confidentiality and integrity impact without availability impact. No public exploit code or active exploitation has been reported yet. This vulnerability highlights the risk of chained web application vulnerabilities that escalate privileges and enable remote takeover.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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 · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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

github.com/Piwigo/Piwigo/security/advisories/GHSA-p362-cfpj-q55f (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 10:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79, CWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats