Open-Source Security Intelligence

Know every vulnerability
before it knows you.

DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.

Search

GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h

HighCVSS 8.1 / 10
Published Jun 26, 2026·Last modified Jun 26, 2026
Affected Components(0)

No affected components available

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 userIdgetUserById() → 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:

  1. Set their own (or anyone's) is_superadmin flag to true via admin/api/user/editfull privilege escalation to SuperAdmin.
  2. 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.php
    • editUser() lines 419-476; user-controlled userId at :433, user-controlled is_superadmin at :443, sink $user >setSuperAdmin((bool)$isSuperAdmin) at :463. Only gate: userHasPermission(PermissionType::USER_EDIT) at :422.
    • updateUserRights() lines 482-520; userId at :496, sink grantUserRight($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.phpuserHasPermission() :221-227 (checks one right only; non SuperAdmins can hold it).
  • phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/User.phpsetSuperAdmin() :950-962 (UPDATE faquser SET is_superadmin=… WHERE user_id=…, no guard); isSuperAdmin() :942-945.
  • phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Permission/BasicPermission.phphasPermission() :95-112 (SuperAdmin short-circuits true, else checkUserRight).

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 only add_user/edit_user/delete_user.
  • Control: the patched overwritePassword guard blocks editor changing the SuperAdmin (id=1) — confirms the fix works there.
  • Exploit 1: editor (non-SuperAdmin, passes userHasPermission(edit_user)) flips their own is_superadmin 0→1 → SuperAdmin. VULNERABLE.
  • Exploit 2: editor grants the editconfig right via updateUserRights. 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(): reject is_superadmin/status/2FA changes unless $this->currentUser->isSuperAdmin(); never allow a non-SuperAdmin to edit a SuperAdmin or protected target. Treat is_superadmin as a SuperAdmin-only field (defeat the mass-assignment at :443/:463).
  • updateUserRights(): require isSuperAdmin() (or a privilege-level comparison) before grantUserRight; 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.
Risk Scores
Base Score
8.1

The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker needs basic access or low-level privileges. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The impact is confined to the system where the vulnerability exists. There is a high impact on the confidentiality of the information. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data.

Threat Intelligence
7.4

Exploitation activity has been observed. Apply available patches or mitigations urgently.

EPSS
0.44%

The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.

Exploit
Not available

We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.

Browse More

Scan your project

Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.

Checkout DevGuard