Skip to content

AVideo has an Authorize.Net Webhook Signature Bypass that Enables Wallet Balance Inflation via Forged Payment Data

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 22, 2026 in WWBN/AVideo • Updated Jun 22, 2026

Package

composer wwbn/avideo (Composer)

Affected versions

<= 28.0

Patched versions

29.0

Description

Summary

The Authorize.Net webhook handler at plugin/AuthorizeNet/webhook.php contains a signature verification bypass that allows an attacker to forge webhook requests with arbitrary payment amounts and target user IDs. By supplying a valid transaction ID from a small legitimate purchase, the attacker bypasses signature validation and credits arbitrary wallet balances to any user account via attacker-controlled payload fields.

Details

Three flaws combine into an exploit chain:

1. Signature Bypass via OR Logic (webhook.php:33)

if (!$parsed['signatureValid'] && (empty($txnInfo) || !empty($txnInfo['error']))) {
    http_response_code(401);
    echo 'invalid signature';
    exit;
}

The webhook is rejected only when both conditions are true: the signature is invalid AND the transaction lookup fails. If the attacker supplies a real transaction ID (e.g., from their own $1 purchase), getTransactionDetails() succeeds and returns valid data, so the second condition is false. The invalid signature is silently ignored.

2. Payload Values Override API-Fetched Values (AuthorizeNet.php:169-171, webhook.php:44-48)

In analyzeTransactionFromWebhook(), users_id and amount are extracted from the attacker-controlled webhook payload first:

$users_id = isset($metadata['users_id']) ? (int)$metadata['users_id'] : null;
$amount   = isset($payload['amount']) ? (float)$payload['amount'] : ...;

The fallback logic in webhook.php only applies when the analysis values are empty/falsy:

if (!$analysis['users_id'] && !empty($txnInfo['users_id'])) {
    $analysis['users_id'] = (int)$txnInfo['users_id'];
}
if (!$analysis['amount'] && isset($txnInfo['amount'])) {
    $analysis['amount'] = (float)$txnInfo['amount'];
}

Since the forged payload already provides both values, the authoritative API-fetched values are never used.

3. Missing Approval Check (webhook.php:61-75)

The code checks only that users_id and amount are non-empty before calling processSinglePayment(). The isApproved field is computed in analyzeTransactionFromWebhook() (line 222-228) but never verified before crediting the wallet at line 68-75.

PoC

Prerequisites: Attacker has a low-privileged account on the AVideo instance and has made at least one legitimate small Authorize.Net purchase (e.g., $1.00), noting the transaction ID (e.g., 60123456789).

  1. Immediately after the purchase completes (to race the legitimate webhook), send a forged webhook:
curl -X POST https://target.com/plugin/AuthorizeNet/webhook.php \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{
    "eventType": "net.authorize.payment.authcapture.created",
    "payload": {
      "id": "60123456789",
      "amount": 99999.99,
      "responseCode": 1,
      "metadata": {
        "users_id": 2
      }
    }
  }'
  1. The signature check fails (no X-ANET-Signature header), but getTransactionDetails('60123456789') succeeds because it is a real transaction. The OR condition on line 33 is not fully satisfied, so execution continues.

  2. analyzeTransactionFromWebhook() uses the forged payload's amount: 99999.99 and metadata.users_id: 2.

  3. processSinglePayment() credits $99,999.99 to user ID 2's wallet via addBalance().

  4. The dedup key is sha1('net.authorize.payment.authcapture.created' . '60123456789'), so the legitimate webhook arriving later is silently discarded as a duplicate.

  5. The attacker can repeat with new transaction IDs from additional small purchases for cumulative balance inflation.

Impact

  • Wallet balance inflation: Attacker credits arbitrary amounts to any user's wallet without corresponding payment, bypassing the payment gateway's actual charge amount.
  • Premium content access: Inflated wallet balance allows purchasing all paid/premium video content without real payment.
  • Subscription fraud: By including plans_id in forged metadata, the attacker can activate premium subscriptions (webhook.php:86-134) without corresponding payment.
  • Financial loss: Platform owner loses revenue from fraudulently accessed premium content and services.

Recommended Fix

1. Reject webhooks with invalid signatures unconditionally — the transaction lookup should only be used for data enrichment after signature validation passes:

// webhook.php line 33 — FIX: reject on invalid signature alone
if (!$parsed['signatureValid']) {
    _error_log('[Authorize.Net webhook] Bad signature');
    http_response_code(401);
    echo 'invalid signature';
    exit;
}

2. Use API-fetched values as authoritative — in webhook.php lines 44-55, invert the precedence so $txnInfo values always override payload values:

// Always prefer API-fetched values over payload values
if (!empty($txnInfo['users_id'])) {
    $analysis['users_id'] = (int)$txnInfo['users_id'];
}
if (isset($txnInfo['amount'])) {
    $analysis['amount'] = (float)$txnInfo['amount'];
}

3. Check isApproved before processing — add a gate before processSinglePayment():

if (!$analysis['isApproved']) {
    _error_log('[Authorize.Net webhook] Transaction not approved');
    http_response_code(400);
    echo 'transaction not approved';
    exit;
}

References

@DanielnetoDotCom DanielnetoDotCom published to WWBN/AVideo Jun 22, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 22, 2026
Reviewed Jun 22, 2026
Last updated Jun 22, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

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.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-33731

GHSA ID

GHSA-95jh-7r58-xmxw

Source code

Credits

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