How severe is GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw?

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw has a CVSS score of 4/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw?

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw affects the following packages: october/backend (Packagist). Ecosystems affected: Packagist.

How do I fix GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw?

Update october/backend to 1.0.470 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw in my Packagist dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for october/backend, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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.

Is GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw?

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 24th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw?

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw is classified as CWE-863 (CWE-863), Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269). These weakness types describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw was published on November 23, 2020 and was last updated on July 8, 2026. 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

Privilege escalation by backend users assigned to the default "Publisher" system roleGHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw

MEDIUMFix: octobercms/october@4c650bb

GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw is a medium-severity (CVSS 4) CWE-863 vulnerability in october/backend. A fix is available for october/backend — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2020-15248

Published

Nov 23, 2020

Updated

Jul 8, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 6, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs24th percentile — riskier than 24% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐘october/backend

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

Impact

Backend users with the default "Publisher" system role have access to create & manage users where they can choose which role the new user has. This means that a user with "Publisher" access has the ability to escalate their access to "Developer" access.

Patches

Issue has been patched in Build 470 (v1.0.470) & v1.1.1.

Workarounds

Apply https://github.com/octobercms/october/commit/78a37298a4ed4602b383522344a31e311402d829 to your installation manually if unable to upgrade to Build 470 or v1.1.1.

References

Reported by Hoan Hoang

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Email us at [email protected]

Threat assessment:

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐘Packagist	`october/backend`	≥ 1.0.319&&< 1.0.470	1.0.470`composer require october/backend:^1.0.470`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

octoberoctobercms

≥ 1.0.319 && < 1.0.469

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for october/backend, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update october/backend to 1.0.470 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-rfjc-xrmf-5vvw 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

### Impact Backend users with the default "Publisher" system role have access to create & manage users where they can choose which role the new user has. This means that a user with "Publisher" access has the ability to escalate their access to "Developer" access. ### Patches Issue has been patched in Build 470 (v1.0.470) & v1.1.1. ### Workarounds Apply https://github.com/octobercms/october/commit/78a37298a4ed4602b383522344a31e311402d829 to your installation manually if unable to upgrade to Build 470 or v1.1.1. ### References Reported by [Hoan Hoang](https://github.com/hoanhp) ### For mor