CVE-2002-0008
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 · uneditedBugzilla before 2.14.1 allows remote attackers to (1) spoof a user comment via an HTTP request to process_bug.cgi using the "who" parameter, instead of the Bugzilla_login cookie, or (2) post a bug as another user by modifying the reporter parameter to enter_bug.cgi, which is passed to post_bug.cgi.
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 · high confidenceBugzilla before 2.14.1 contains authentication bypass vulnerabilities where the application trusts user-supplied parameters (the 'who' parameter in process_bug.cgi and the 'reporter' parameter in enter_bug.cgi/post_bug.cgi) instead of properly validating user identity through the Bugzilla_login cookie, allowing remote attackers to spoof user comments or post bugs as other users.
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 data<= 2.14.1CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Bugzilla versionLocate the Bugzilla version file or check the version displayed in the Bugzilla web interface (typically shown on the footer of pages or in the 'About' page)Affected if The installed version is 2.14.1 or earlier
-
Locate affected CGI scriptsCheck if process_bug.cgi, enter_bug.cgi, and post_bug.cgi are present in the web-accessible cgi-bin directoryAffected if These CGI scripts exist and are in use
-
Verify CGI parameter handlingReview the source code of the affected CGI scripts to confirm whether they accept 'who' or 'reporter' parameters without proper cookie-based authentication validationAffected if The scripts accept and use these user-supplied parameters for authentication decisions rather than relying solely on the Bugzilla_login cookie
-
Confirm web exposureDetermine if the Bugzilla CGI scripts are accessible over the network via HTTP/HTTPSAffected if The Bugzilla web interface is publicly or internally accessible
-
Check authentication mechanismReview how the CGI scripts validate user identity - look for whether they check Bugzilla_login cookie or accept user-supplied parameters like 'who' or 'reporter' for authentication decisionsAffected if The application trusts client-supplied parameters for user identity rather than server-side cookie validation
You are affected if your installed Bugzilla version is 2.14.1 or earlier and the application relies on user-supplied 'who' or 'reporter' parameters instead of proper cookie-based authentication.
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 Bugzilla to version 2.14.1 or later, which implements proper server-side validation of user identity through authentication cookies rather than trusting client-supplied parameters.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0008 — 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-2002-0008 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