phpMyFAQ has an incomplete fix for GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3 — editUser() and updateUserRights() lack authorization guardsGHSA-985r-q3qp-299h
HIGHGHSA-985r-q3qp-299h is a high-severity (CVSS 8.1) CWE-862 vulnerability in thorsten/phpmyfaq. A fix is available for thorsten/phpmyfaq — see the affected versions and patch details below.
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 GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 389,824 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
Advisory / Disclosure
phpMyFAQ 4.1.3 — incomplete fix for the admin-API IDOR/privilege-escalation class
Target: thorsten/phpMyFAQ (composer: thorsten/phpmyfaq, phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq)
Affected: <= 4.1.3 (the 4.1.3 security fix is incomplete; siblings remain)
Class: CWE-862 Missing Authorization / CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management / CWE-639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Methodology: M1 incomplete-fix audit (sibling-walk of the 4.1.3 fix for GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3)
Severity: High — CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H = 8.8 (same class as the parent CVE)
Summary
phpMyFAQ 4.1.3 fixed GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3 ("IDOR Account Takeover") by adding actor-authorization guards to UserController::overwritePassword(). The patch establishes a new invariant, stated in its own code comments:
"Only SuperAdmins may change other users' [attributes]. Self-service is always allowed." and "a non-SuperAdmin must never be able to alter a SuperAdmin or protected account."
That invariant is not enforced on two sibling endpoints in the same file, which the 4.1.3 fix left unchanged, and which carry the identical "user-controlled userId → getUserById() → privileged mutation" primitive — but with a strictly more dangerous sink:
| Endpoint | Route | Sink | Guard in 4.1.3 |
|---|---|---|---|
overwritePassword() | admin/api/user/overwrite-password | changePassword() | isSelf + isSuperAdmin + target-protection (patched) |
editUser() | admin/api/user/edit | setSuperAdmin((bool)$req.is_superadmin) | none (only userHasPermission(USER_EDIT)) |
updateUserRights() | admin/api/user/update-rights | grantUserRight($req.userId, …) | none (only userHasPermission(USER_EDIT)) |
A logged-in administrator holding the delegable edit_user right — but not SuperAdmin — can therefore:
- Set their own (or anyone's)
is_superadminflag totrueviaadmin/api/user/edit→ full privilege escalation to SuperAdmin. - Grant arbitrary rights to any account via
admin/api/user/update-rights.
This is exactly the threat model the parent advisory (GHSA-xvp4) calls out: "organizations with multiple admin users where not all should have SuperAdmin access."
Anchors (upstream tag 4.1.3)
phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/UserController.phpeditUser()lines 419-476; user-controlleduserIdat :433, user-controlledis_superadminat :443, sink$user >setSuperAdmin((bool)$isSuperAdmin)at :463. Only gate:userHasPermission(PermissionType::USER_EDIT)at :422.updateUserRights()lines 482-520;userIdat :496, sinkgrantUserRight($userId, …)at :511. Only gate at :485.overwritePassword()lines 419… → 228-288; the patched guards at: 254-260 and: 269-273.
phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/AbstractController.php—userHasPermission():221-227 (checks one right only; non SuperAdmins can hold it).phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/User.php—setSuperAdmin():950-962 (UPDATE faquser SET is_superadmin=… WHERE user_id=…, no guard);isSuperAdmin():942-945.phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Permission/BasicPermission.php—hasPermission():95-112 (SuperAdmin short-circuits true, elsecheckUserRight).
Evidence snapshots in this folder:
advisory/fix-diff-4.1.2-to-4.1.3.txt (proves the fix touched only overwritePassword/deleteUser) and advisory/vulnerable-siblings-4.1.3.txt (the two unguarded methods as shipped). git diff 4.1.2 4.1.3 shows no change to editUser, updateUserRights, setSuperAdmin, or grantUserRight.
Proof of Concept
poc/poc.php (run log: poc/run-log.txt). Dependency-free: it builds phpMyFAQ's real schema (copied verbatim from
src/phpMyFAQ/Instance/Database/Sqlite3.php) and executes the verbatim SQL that the shipped 4.1.3 methods run —setSuperAdmin (UPDATE), grantUserRight (INSERT), and the real hasPermission / checkUserRight / getRightId queries — to prove the primitive:
- Seeds a SuperAdmin (
admin, id=1) and a non-SuperAdmin admin (editor, id=2) granted onlyadd_user/edit_user/delete_user. - Control: the patched
overwritePasswordguard blockseditorchanging the SuperAdmin (id=1) — confirms the fix works there. - Exploit 1:
editor(non-SuperAdmin, passesuserHasPermission(edit_user)) flips their ownis_superadmin0→1 → SuperAdmin.VULNERABLE. - Exploit 2:
editorgrants theeditconfigright viaupdateUserRights.VULNERABLE.
Run:
php poc/poc.php # -> RESULT: VULNERABLE ... EXIT 0
PoC scope (honest)
The PoC exercises the privilege-escalation primitive (the unguarded sinks + the real authorization-resolution logic) against the real schema. The full HTTP exploit additionally requires an authenticated admin session and a CSRF token (editUser verifies update-user-data, updateUserRights verifies update-user-rights); both are available to the authenticated admin attacker — the parent advisory's own PoC shows reading the CSRF token from admin pages. The controller-level absence of an authorization guard is established by source citation (the only gate is userHasPermission(USER_EDIT)), corroborated by the fix diff showing these methods were not modified.
Recommended fix
Apply the overwritePassword invariant to the siblings:
editUser(): rejectis_superadmin/status/2FA changes unless$this->currentUser->isSuperAdmin(); never allow a non-SuperAdmin to edit a SuperAdmin orprotectedtarget. Treatis_superadminas a SuperAdmin-only field (defeat the mass-assignment at :443/:463).updateUserRights(): requireisSuperAdmin()(or a privilege-level comparison) beforegrantUserRight; forbid granting rights the actor does not itself hold, and forbid targeting SuperAdmin/protected users.activate()(admin/api/user/activate, :194-221) is a lower-impact sibling with the same shape — apply the same guard.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | thorsten/phpmyfaq | all versions | 4.1.4composer require thorsten/phpmyfaq:^4.1.4 |
| 🐘Packagist | phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq | all versions | 4.1.4composer require phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq:^4.1.4 |
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 4.1.4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Close the privilege gap rather than the entry point: audit which accounts, roles and service identities can reach the affected operation, drop the component to the least privilege it actually needs, and review file and directory permissions created by earlier installs — a default left in place is what makes this reachable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h in your dependencies?
Find it across Packagist, including transitive dependencies.