CVE-2002-1541
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 · uneditedBadBlue 1.7 allows remote attackers to bypass password protections for directories and files via an HTTP request containing an extra / (slash).
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 confidenceBadBlue 1.7 web server contains a path handling vulnerability where an extra forward slash in HTTP requests allows remote attackers to bypass password protection mechanisms on directories and files. This appears to be a path normalization issue where the server fails to properly canonicalize URLs before checking access controls.
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= 1.7.0CVSS 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.
-
Confirm BadBlue is installed and runningCheck for BadBlue processes running on the system or look for the executable (typically badblue.exe on Windows)Affected if BadBlue version 1.7.0 is found running
-
Identify the installed BadBlue versionCheck the version of the BadBlue executable or examine the server banner via an HTTP requestAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.7.0
-
Verify password protection is configuredAccess the BadBlue admin interface or configuration to confirm at least one directory or file has password protection enabledAffected if Password protection rules exist for any protected resource
-
Test for authentication bypass via extra slashSend an HTTP GET request for a protected resource with an extra forward slash (e.g., GET //protected/file.html) and compare the response to a normal requestAffected if The request with // returns content that would normally require authentication while a normal request prompts for credentials
The environment is affected if BadBlue 1.7.0 is running with password-protected resources, and those resources become accessible without authentication when the URL contains an extra forward slash.
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 BadBlue to a patched version if available. Alternatively, restrict network-level access to the server using firewall rules or VPN until a patch can be applied.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1541 — 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-2002-1541 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