packagist package report

Is ibexa/fieldtype-richtext safe?

4 known vulnerabilities, worst severity HIGH.

cvss
7.5

how bad it is if exploited, out of 10

epss
not scored

chance of exploitation in the next 30 days

xyz score
3.3

CyberXYZ composite, out of 10

fig. 01 — GHSA-cj3w-g42v-wcj6, the advisory selected below

// advisories

GHSA-cj3w-g42v-wcj6

HIGH

This security advisory resolves a vulnerability in the RichText field type. By entering a maliciously crafted input into the RichText XML, an attacker could perform an attack using XML external entity (XXE) injection, which might be able to read files on the server. To exploit this vulnerability the attacker would need to already have edit permission to content with RichText fields, which typicall

Affected
>= 4.6.0-beta1, < 4.6.19
Fixed in
4.6.19
Weakness
CWE-611
Published
2025-04-10
Source
github

GHSAreferencereferencereference

// dependencies

0 direct

Sign in for dependency paths and remediation

// ai model usage

Tracked for PyPI packages. HuggingFace models declare Python dependencies, so packagist packages are not covered.

Checked 2026-09-22 at 02:41 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2025-10-17. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.
Is ibexa/fieldtype-richtext safe? packagist package security report | CyberXYZ