GHSA-22gj-8qj2-fj46 BIT-moodle-2023-30943 CVE-2023-30943

Moodle External Control of File Name or Path vulnerability

Medium Packagist

Severity: 5.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 6.83%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 94.03% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-610 Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere; CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
Fix: 4.2.0-rc2; Upgrade moodle/moodle to this version or later

Description

The vulnerability was found Moodle which exists because the application allows a user to control path of the older to create in TinyMCE loaders. A remote user can send a specially crafted HTTP request and create arbitrary folders on the system.

Affected versions

Packagist

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
moodle/moodle	`< 4.2.0-rc2`	`4.2.0-rc2`

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

moodle/moodle Packagist → `4.2.0-rc2`

composer

composer require moodle/moodle:^4.2.0-rc2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-610: Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere

The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

CWE-73: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.
Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
Implementation: Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).
Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-30943

Packages

github.com/moodle/moodle

Timeline

May 2, 2023 Published
Sep 10, 2026 Last updated by the source
Nov 1, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-cg8j-5cr2-568q Moodle TeX formula editor is vulnerable to DoS through lack of execution time limits	Medium	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-ggxq-2mg9-8966 Moodle has a Remote Code Execution risk via file restore	High	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-8jrv-wx83-w3xj Moodle Inserts Sensitive Information Into Sent Data	Medium	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-hcm6-q6pc-xfhm Moodle has an authorization logic flaw	Critical	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-vwhw-vp9v-q9c9 Moodle vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting	Medium	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-5cx4-w4fh-fr57 Moodle Affected by Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts	High	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-qv78-6gpp-hm68 Moodle Open Redirect vulnerability	Medium	Also affects moodle/moodle
GHSA-qfh6-h7j6-fvjv Moodle formula injection vulnerability	High	Also affects moodle/moodle

Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor