Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-22208 is a medium-severity Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) vulnerability in Phpmyfaq Phpmyfaq. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked in the top 46% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0596
Vulnerability Data
phpMyFAQ is an Open Source FAQ web application for PHP 8.1+ and MySQL, PostgreSQL and other databases. The 'sharing FAQ' functionality allows any unauthenticated actor to misuse the phpMyFAQ application to send arbitrary emails to a large range of targets.…
more
The phpMyFAQ application has a functionality where anyone can share a FAQ item to others. The front-end of this functionality allows any phpMyFAQ articles to be shared with 5 email addresses. Any unauthenticated actor can perform this action. There is a CAPTCHA in place, however the amount of people you email with a single request is not limited to 5 by the backend. An attacker can thus solve a single CAPTCHA and send thousands of emails at once. An attacker can utilize the target application's email server to send phishing messages. This can get the server on a blacklist, causing all emails to end up in spam. It can also lead to reputation damages. This issue has been patched in version 3.2.5.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires correct enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally preventing incorrect checks.
AC-24 ensures access-control decisions are made and applied consistently, reducing the chance of an incorrect authorization result.
A reference monitor that is always invoked and tamper-proof forces every authorization decision through a verified, correct path.
Least-privilege assignments shrink the set of authorizations that must be checked correctly, limiting exposure to flawed checks.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Requiring consistency between access rights and classification plus formal approval steps ensures that the authorization logic correctly distinguishes between entities that should and should not be granted access.
A.5.18's provisioning, revocation, review and adjustment of access rights (incl. before role changes/termination, with segregation and owner approval) directly stops incorrect authorization decisions from being exploitable in the vast majority of cases; the bounded remainder is incorrectness inside the authorization logic itself (e.g. flawed conditional or missing check) rather than rights that were wrongly granted.
A.8.3 directly mandates restricting access to information per policies via configuration, identity/group controls, isolation, and dynamic techniques that enforce correct authorization decisions, addressing most but not all slices of CWE-863 (e.g., remainder in non-access-decision authorization errors like timing or environmental factors).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-863, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.