GHSA-h77r-rp97-7rv4 BIT-moodle-2020-25699 CVE-2020-25699

Privilage Escalation in moodle

High Packagist

Severity: 7.5 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 1.61%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 75.90% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management; CWE-863 Incorrect Authorization
Fix: 3.9.3; Upgrade moodle/moodle to this version or later

Description

In moodle, insufficient capability checks could lead to users with the ability to course restore adding additional capabilities to roles within that course. Versions affected: 3.9 to 3.9.2, 3.8 to 3.8.5, 3.7 to 3.7.8, 3.5 to 3.5.14 and earlier unsupported versions. This is fixed in moodle 3.9.3, 3.8.6, 3.7.9, 3.5.15, and 3.10.

Affected versions

Packagist

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
moodle/moodle	`>= 3.9.0, < 3.9.3`	`3.9.3`
moodle/moodle	`>= 3.8.0, < 3.8.6`	`3.8.6`
moodle/moodle	`>= 3.7.0, < 3.7.9`	`3.7.9`
moodle/moodle	`>= 3.5, < 3.5.15`	`3.5.15`

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 → `3.9.3`

composer

composer require moodle/moodle:^3.9.3

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 7.5

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

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

Weakness

CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

How to prevent it

Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.

CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.

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

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-25699

Packages

github.com/moodle/moodle

Timeline

Mar 29, 2021 Published
Feb 16, 2024 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