Skip to content

GHSA-rw77-vq4g-x3hp CVE-2026-56738

phpMyFAQ has SQL Injection in `StopWords::add()` — Unescaped Stop Word Insertion

High Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.26%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 17.89% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-89 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Summary

The StopWords::add() method in phpMyFAQ builds a SQL INSERT statement using sprintf() and inserts the user-supplied stop word value directly into the query string without calling the application's database escaping function on it. A sibling method, StopWords::update(), which modifies an existing stop word, correctly escapes the same kind of input. The omission is isolated to the add() (insert) code path.

An authenticated administrator who can reach the stop-word management feature can submit a crafted value as the "word" parameter that breaks out of the SQL string literal and injects arbitrary SQL, including statements to drop tables, exfiltrate data, or modify other rows in the database.


Affected Code

File: phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/StopWords.php Method: add() (approx. lines 60–75 in the audited revision)

$sql = sprintf(
    "INSERT INTO %s VALUES(%d, '%s', '%s')",
    $this->getTableName(),
    $id,
    $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($this->language), // language IS escaped
    $word                                                     // <-- $word is NOT escaped
);

$word is taken directly from the administrative form input (the new stop word to add) and concatenated into the SQL string via sprintf("'%s'", ...) with no call to the database driver's escape() method.

Contrast with the safe sibling method

Method: update() (line 82 in the audited revision)

$this->configuration->getDb()->escape($word)

update() — which modifies an existing stop word — correctly escapes $word before use. add() does not perform the same escaping on the equivalent value. This inconsistency between two methods handling the same data type is the root cause: the escaping convention used throughout the rest of the file was not applied uniformly to this one insertion path.


Proof of Concept

Precondition: Attacker has valid administrator credentials (or has otherwise obtained an authenticated administrator session, e.g. via a separate session-hijacking or CSRF vector).

Attack steps:

  1. Authenticate to the phpMyFAQ administration panel.

  2. Navigate to the Stop Words management feature.

  3. Submit a new stop word with the following value instead of a normal word:

    test', 'en'); DROP TABLE faqstopwords; --
    
  4. The resulting SQL statement sent to the database becomes (table/column names approximate, based on the traced sprintf template):

    INSERT INTO faqstopwords VALUES(1, 'en', 'test', 'en'); DROP TABLE faqstopwords; --')
    
  5. The injected DROP TABLE faqstopwords; statement executes as a second SQL statement (subject to the database driver/PDO configuration permitting multi-statement execution; even where multi-statement execution is disabled, the same injection point allows classic single-statement SQLi techniques such as UNION-based data extraction or boolean/time-based blind injection against other tables the database user can access).


Impact

  • Confidentiality: An attacker with this access can use UNION-based or blind SQL injection techniques to read data from other tables in the database (e.g. user credentials, FAQ content marked as private/internal, session data) that the database user account has permission to access.
  • Integrity: Arbitrary INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements can be appended, allowing modification of unrelated application data.
  • Availability: As demonstrated in the PoC, structural statements like DROP TABLE can be injected, directly impacting application availability.

Mitigating factor: Exploitation requires an authenticated administrator session. This is not exploitable by an anonymous or low-privilege user. This lowers the severity from Critical/High to Medium, consistent with phpMyFAQ's own threat model where administrators are a trusted role — but it remains a genuine defense-in-depth failure: a compromised or malicious admin account (or an admin tricked via a separate vector such as CSRF, if no CSRF protection exists on this specific form) can leverage this into full database compromise, which a properly parameterized query would have prevented even in that scenario.


Root Cause

The codebase's established pattern for this class (StopWords.php) is to escape all string values via $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($value) before placing them into a sprintf()-built SQL string. This pattern is correctly applied to:

  • $this->language in add()
  • $word in update()

It is not applied to $word in add(). This is a single-line omission, not a structural design flaw — the safe pattern already exists in the same file and the same class, just inconsistently applied across the two methods that handle the same input type.


Recommended Fix

Apply the same escaping already used in update() and already used for $this->language in the same add() method:

$sql = sprintf(
    "INSERT INTO %s VALUES(%d, '%s', '%s')",
    $this->getTableName(),
    $id,
    $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($this->language),
    $this->configuration->getDb()->escape($word)   // FIX: escape $word here
);

Stronger recommended fix (defense in depth): Migrate this query, and ideally all sprintf()-built SQL in this class, to parameterized/prepared statements (e.g. PDO::prepare() with bound parameters) rather than string-escaping plus sprintf(). Escaping is correct when applied consistently, but prepared statements remove this entire vulnerability class structurally and prevent any future omission of this kind from being exploitable.

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq
< 4.1.6
4.1.6
thorsten/phpmyfaq
< 4.1.6
4.1.6

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 → 4.1.6

composer
composer require phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq:^4.1.6

thorsten/phpmyfaq Packagist → 4.1.6

composer
composer require thorsten/phpmyfaq:^4.1.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

Weakness

CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.

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]. For example, consider using persistence layers such as Hibernate or Enterprise Java Beans, which can provide significant protection against SQL injection if used properly.
  • 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. Process SQL queries using prepared statements, parameterized queries, or stored procedures. These features should accept parameters or variables and support strong typing. Do not dynamically construct and execute query strings within these features using "exec" or similar functionality, since this may re-introduce the possibility of SQL injection. [REF-867]
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations. Specifically, follow the principle of least privilege when creating user accounts to a SQL database. The database users should only have the minimum privileges necessary to use their account. If the requirements of the system indicate that a user can read and modify their own data, then limit their privileges so they cannot read/write others' data. Use the strictest permissions possible on all database objects, such as execute-only for stored procedures.
  • 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: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88). Instead of building a new implementation, such features may be available in the database or programming language. For example, the Oracle DBMS_ASSERT package can check or enforce that parameters have certain properties that make them less vulnerable to SQL injection. For MySQL, the mysql_real_escape_string() API function is available in both C and PHP.
  • 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 constructing SQL query strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping. Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing SQL injection, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent SQL injection, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, the name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation step, since it is a common last name in the English language. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the data
  • 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.
  • Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of SQL Injection, error messages revealing the structure of a SQL query can help attackers tailor successful attack strings.
  • 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-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
GHSA-8c6h-7g6x-m5x4
phpMyFAQ: Missing userHasPermission() in 4 API write endpoints (CVE-2026-24421 Incomplete Fix)
Medium 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