CVE-2002-0475
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 phpBB 1.4.4 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Javascript on web clients by embedding the script within an IMG image tag while editing a message.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in phpBB 1.4.4 and earlier allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript into web clients by embedding malicious scripts within IMG image tags while editing forum messages.
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= 1.0.0= 1.2.0= 1.2.1= 1.4.0= 1.4.1= 1.4.2= 1.4.4CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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 if phpBB is installedLook for phpBB directories or files in the web root, such as a 'phpbb' or 'forum' directory, or check for phpBB-specific files like 'viewforum.php', 'viewtopic.php', or 'admin/' directory with phpBB admin panels.Affected if phpBB forum software is present on the server
-
Determine the installed phpBB versionAccess the phpBB admin panel and navigate to 'About' or 'Version' information, or check the version variable in the main configuration file (typically contains version information in the source code comments or defined constants).Affected if The version listed is 1.4.4 or earlier (1.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2)
-
Verify if HTML support is enabled in forum postingLog in to the phpBB admin control panel, navigate to 'General Admin' or 'Configuration' settings, and check if 'Allow HTML' or similar option is enabled for forum posts.Affected if HTML is enabled in the forum posting configuration (the vulnerability requires HTML to be allowed for IMG tags to execute)
-
Confirm user-generated content can include IMG tagsAs a forum user, attempt to create or edit a post and verify whether IMG tags are processed as HTML rather than being escaped or stripped.Affected if IMG tags in forum posts render as HTML instead of being neutralized
The environment is affected if phpBB 1.4.4 or earlier is installed with HTML support and IMG tags enabled in forum messages.
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 a patched version of phpBB or migrate to a supported forum platform; implement proper input sanitization and output encoding for user-submitted content.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $4,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0475 — 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-2002-0475 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