Summary
phpMyFAQ has an incomplete fix for GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3, editUser() and updateUserRights() lack authorization guards
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)
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 fromsrc/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.
Impact
GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H has a CVSS score of 8.1 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (4.1.4); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H? GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H is a high-severity security vulnerability in thorsten/phpmyfaq (composer), affecting versions <= 4.1.3. It is fixed in 4.1.4.
- How severe is GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H? GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H has a CVSS score of 8.1 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which packages are affected by GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H?
thorsten/phpmyfaq(composer) (versions <= 4.1.3)phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq(composer) (versions <= 4.1.3)
- Is there a fix for GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H? Yes. GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H is fixed in 4.1.4. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix GHSA-985R-Q3QP-299H?
- Upgrade
thorsten/phpmyfaqto 4.1.4 or later - Upgrade
phpmyfaq/phpmyfaqto 4.1.4 or later
- Upgrade