CVE-2002-1085
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in ezContents 1.41 and earlier allow remote attackers to execute script and steal cookies via the diary and other capabilities.
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 confidenceMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in ezContents 1.41 and earlier allow remote attackers to inject malicious script through the diary functionality and other input fields, enabling cookie theft and session hijacking via client-side script execution.
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<= 1.41CVSS 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.
-
Locate ezContents installationSearch web root directories for the ezcontents folder or check for files containing 'ezcontents', 'ezContents', or 'visualshapers' in the filename or contentAffected if The software is present on the server
-
Determine installed versionCheck the main ezcontents PHP files (such as index.php, version.php, or any admin/configuration file) for a version string or numberAffected if The version is 1.41 or any version lower than 1.41
-
Verify diary module accessibilityAttempt to access the diary functionality via the web browser by navigating to paths such as /diary/, /diary.php, or the main ezcontents index and locate the diary sectionAffected if The diary module is accessible and functional on the site
-
Identify vulnerable input fieldsExamine the diary page HTML source or form elements for input fields that accept user data without visible server-side sanitization indicatorsAffected if User-supplied input fields are present in the diary or other form modules without evident output encoding
A system is affected if ezContents version 1.41 or lower is installed and the diary or other user input modules are accessible, as these contain the XSS vectors that could allow cookie theft or session hijacking.
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 dataImplement robust input validation and output encoding on all user-supplied data, particularly in the diary module and other form handlers, to prevent script injection attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1085 — 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-2002-1085 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