CVE-2001-0897
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site scripting vulnerability in Infopop Ultimate Bulletin Board (UBB) before 5.47e allows remote attackers to steal user cookies via an [IMG] tag that references an about: URL with an onerror field.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceCross-site scripting vulnerability in Infopop Ultimate Bulletin Board (UBB) versions prior to 5.47e allows remote attackers to steal user session cookies by embedding malicious JavaScript in an [IMG] tag that uses an about: URL with an onerror handler. When the browser attempts to load the malformed about: URL, the onerror attribute executes the attacker's script in the context of the vulnerable page, exposing session credentials.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versions= 1.0= 2.0= 2.01= 2.02= 2.03= 2.04= 2.05= 2.10= 2.11= 3.0= 3.01CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify UBB versionCheck the version file in your UBB installation (commonly version.cgi, ubb_version.cgi, or the main config file). Access your admin panel and look for version information in the system or About section.Affected if The installed version is any of the listed versions (1.0, 2.0-2.05, 2.10-2.11, 3.0-3.01) or earlier than 5.47e.
-
Confirm [IMG] BBCode is enabledLog into the UBB admin control panel and navigate to BBCode or Message Formatting settings. Look for the [IMG] tag option and verify it is set to Enabled or Allowed.Affected if The [IMG] BBCode functionality is enabled in the forum settings.
-
Test for XSS in [IMG] tagsPost a test message using the [img] tag with a malformed URL such as [img]about://test[/img] or [img]javascript:alert(1)[/img] and observe whether the forum parses or executes the content.Affected if The forum accepts and parses [IMG] tags without proper sanitization of the URL attribute.
-
Inspect HTTP response headersCheck the HTTP headers returned by your UBB installation for version disclosure. Look for Server or X-Powered-By headers that may reveal UBB version information.Affected if Headers reveal a UBB version prior to 5.47e.
If your installed UBB version is prior to 5.47e and the [IMG] BBCode feature is enabled, your environment is affected by this XSS vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to UBB version 5.47e or later which contains the patch for this vulnerability; until then, consider disabling the [IMG] BBCode functionality or implementing input filtering at the web application firewall level.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2001-0897 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2001-0897 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data