How severe is GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh?

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh has a CVSS score of 6.5/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh?

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh affects the following packages: ec-cube/ec-cube (Packagist). Ecosystems affected: Packagist.

How do I fix GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh?

Update ec-cube/ec-cube to 2.17.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh in my Packagist dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for ec-cube/ec-cube. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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 does O3 Security protect against GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 1 known exploit references for GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh, including 1 in-the-wild exploitation observed on GitHub and other sources. Treat this as actively exploitable and prioritize patching immediately. All exploit code should only be run in an isolated sandbox environment for research or authorized testing — never against production systems without explicit written authorization.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh?

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is classified as Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (CWE-352). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh was published on May 24, 2022 and was last updated on April 25, 2024. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐘

🐘 Packagist

Not in CISA KEV

MEDIUM severity

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh

MEDIUM

GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ec-cube/ec-cube. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

EC-CUBE Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability

Also known asCVE-2021-20842

Published

May 24, 2022

Updated

Apr 25, 2024

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

1 known

Exploitation data as of Apr 25, 2024 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐘ec-cube/ec-cube

Real-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

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in EC-CUBE 2 series 2.11.0 to 2.17.1 allows a remote attacker to hijack the authentication of Administrator and delete Administrator via a specially crafted web page.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐘Packagist	`ec-cube/ec-cube`	≥ 2.11.0&&< 2.17.2	2.17.2

Exploits & PoCs

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in EC-CUBE 2 series 2.11…

ec-cube.netNVDNov 2021

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for ec-cube/ec-cube. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update ec-cube/ec-cube to 2.17.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh 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 pinpoints whether GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-m9hv-qmqh-33qh across Packagist dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works