GHSA-wfm4-pq59-wg6r is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) CWE-209 vulnerability in sulu/sulu. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-wfm4-pq59-wg6r is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
Reset Password / Login vulnerability in Sulu
Real-World Exposure
sulu/sulu🐘sulu/sulu🐘sulu/suluReal-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
What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?
This vulnerability consists of a few related issues:
Forget password leaks information if the user exists
When the "Forget password" feature on the login screen is used, Sulu asks the user for a username or email address. If the given string is not found, a response with a 400 error code is returned, along with a error message saying that this user name does not exist:
{
"code": 0,
"message": "Entity with the type \u0022Sulu\\Bundle\\SecurityBundle\\Entity\\User\u0022 and the id \u0022asdf\u0022 not found."
}
This enables attackers to retrieve valid usernames.
Forgot password leaks user email if user exists
The response of the "Forgot Password" request returns the email address to which the email was sent, if the operation was successful:
{"email":"[email protected]"}
This information should not be exposed, as it can be used to gather email addresses.
Response time of login gives hint if the username exists
If the username the user enters in the login screen does not exists, the request responds much faster than if the username exists. This again allows attackers to retrieve valid usernames.
Reset Token for Forgot Password feature is not hashed
The reset token in the user database table is not hashed. That means that somebody could try to request a new password using the Forgot Password feature, and look that up in the database, if the attacker somehow got access to the database. Hashing the reset token would fix that problem.
Patches
This problem was fixed in Release 1.6.34, 2.0.10 and 2.1.1.
Workarounds
Override the files manually in your project and change them accordingly.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | sulu/sulu | all versions | 1.6.34 |
| 🐘Packagist | sulu/sulu | ≥ 2.0.0&&< 2.0.10 | 2.0.10 |
| 🐘Packagist | sulu/sulu | ≥ 2.1.0&&< 2.1.1 | 2.1.1 |
Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for sulu/sulu. 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 sulu/sulu to 1.6.34 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-wfm4-pq59-wg6r 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-wfm4-pq59-wg6r 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-wfm4-pq59-wg6r. 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-wfm4-pq59-wg6r in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-wfm4-pq59-wg6r across Packagist dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.