CVE-2003-0484
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 (XSS) vulnerability in viewtopic.php for phpBB allows remote attackers to insert arbitrary web script via the topic_id parameter.
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's viewtopic.php allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML via the topic_id parameter. This occurs because user-supplied input in the topic_id parameter is not properly sanitized before being rendered in the HTML output.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 phpBB installation existsSearch the web root directory for phpBB installation files (common paths: /phpBB/, /forum/, /phpbb/, or directly in web root). Look for files like config.php, common.php, or the viewtopic.php file itself.Affected if phpBB is installed and viewtopic.php exists in a web-accessible location
-
Identify phpBB versionCheck the version by inspecting the phpBB documentation file (docs/INSTALL.html or docs/README.html), or look for a version constant in includes/constants.php. The admin panel (login required) also displays the version under "PHPBB Version" or similar.Affected if Any version of phpBB is found - the advisory states all versions are affected
-
Verify viewtopic.php is web-accessibleAttempt to access viewtopic.php via HTTP (e.g., GET /viewtopic.php or /forum/viewtopic.php). If the file returns a valid response rather than a 404 error, the script is accessible.Affected if viewtopic.php responds to HTTP requests, indicating it is web-facing
-
Check if topic_id parameter lacks sanitizationExamine the viewtopic.php source code for the topic_id parameter handling. Search for lines where the topic_id is retrieved (e.g., $topic_id = request_var('topic_id', 0)) and check if it is sanitized (via htmlspecialchars, intval, or similar) before being output in HTML.Affected if The topic_id parameter is used in HTML output without being sanitized through functions like htmlspecialchars() or intval()
If phpBB is installed with viewtopic.php accessible via the web and the topic_id parameter is not sanitized before HTML output, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2003-0484.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a patched version of phpBB. If immediate patching is not possible, implement input validation and output encoding for the topic_id parameter in viewtopic.php.
- 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-2003-0484 — 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-2003-0484 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