GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 — ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms
Fix: ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms@2f38284GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 is a CWE-613 vulnerability in ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms. A fix is available for ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms — see the affected versions and patch details below.
CI4MS has a Deactivated User Session Bypass (active=0)
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
Real-World Exposure
ci4-cms-erp/ci4msReal-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 auth filter has the deactivated/banned user check commented out.
Details
CodeIgniter Shield's loggedIn() re-checks the status field (catching status='banned'), but does not re-check the active field for existing sessions. When an admin deactivates a user (active=0) after they have already logged in:
- Their session cookie remains valid
auth()->loggedIn()still returnstrue- The commented-out code is the only mechanism that would have checked
!$user->active
Evidence
<img width="981" height="654" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6f75d144-5bcf-4a3f-bc35-bb0715c3ed05" />Impact
- User deactivation does NOT immediately revoke backend access
- Deactivated user retains full access until session expires (default: 7200s)
Additional note
The commented-out block appears to be a deferred placeholder — it was written but disabled from the very first commit that introduced the filter, and has never been active. The later addition of SessionTracker (v0.31.4.0) suggests the dev was aware of the session revocation gap, but account-level deactivation (users.active = 0) remains unenforced. Could you verify if this is intentionally pending or simply forgotten and not documented?.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms | ≥ 0.26.0&&< 0.31.8.0 | 0.31.8.0composer require ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms:^0.31.8.0 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update ci4-cms-erp/ci4ms to 0.31.8.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-5hfv-c864-qcq9 across Packagist dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.