CVE-2002-1753
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 · uneditedcsNewsPro.cgi in CGIScript.net csNews Professional (csNewsPro) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Perl code via the setup parameter, which is processed by the Perl eval function.
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 confidencecsNewsPro.cgi in CGIScript.net csNews Professional contains a code injection vulnerability where the setup parameter is passed to the Perl eval() function without sanitization, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary Perl code on the server.
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= 1.0CVSS 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.
-
Locate csNewsPro.cgi on the systemSearch for the file csNewsPro.cgi in web-accessible directories, typically under cgi-bin or similar web directories. Use commands like: find / -name 'csNewsPro.cgi' 2>/dev/null or check common cgi-bin paths.Affected if The file csNewsPro.cgi exists on the server in a web-accessible location.
-
Determine the installed version of csNews ProfessionalCheck the version information in the csNewsPro.cgi file, its associated configuration files, or any version comments within the script. Look for version strings such as '1.0' in the code or in a separate version/info file.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0.
-
Verify the CGI script is executable and web-accessibleConfirm that the csNewsPro.cgi file has execute permissions (chmod +x) and is accessible via HTTP through the web server. Attempt to access it via browser or curl to confirm it responds.Affected if The script is accessible and responds to HTTP requests.
-
Inspect the source code for unsafe eval() usageExamine the csNewsPro.cgi source code and search for 'eval' statements that incorporate the 'setup' parameter without sanitization. Look for patterns like 'eval($setup)' or similar constructs.Affected if The code contains an eval() call that uses the 'setup' parameter without input validation.
-
Test if the setup parameter is acceptedSend a request to csNewsPro.cgi with a test setup parameter value (e.g., ?setup=test) and observe whether the value is processed or reflected in the response. Compare behavior with and without the parameter.Affected if The application accepts and processes the setup parameter from user input.
The server is affected if csNewsPro.cgi version 1.0 is installed, is web-accessible, and the source code reveals that the setup parameter is passed to an unsanitized eval() function.
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 dataRemove or properly sanitize user input to the setup parameter; replace unsafe eval() usage with safe parameter handling or direct function calls. If the application is legacy and unmaintained, consider migrating to a supported content management system.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1753 — 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-2002-1753 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