CVE-2003-1454
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 · uneditedInvision Power Services Invision Board 1.0 through 1.1.1, when a forum is password protected, stores the administrator password in a cookie in plaintext, which could allow remote attackers to gain access.
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 confidenceInvision Board 1.0-1.1.1 stores the administrator password in plaintext within a cookie when a forum is password-protected. This exposes credentials directly to network observers or attackers with local cookie access, enabling unauthorized administrative access.
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= 1.0.1= 1.1.1CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 Invision Board installation and versionLocate Invision Board files on the web server. Check for version identifier in the source code, likely in a configuration file or index file (common paths include /index.php or a /conf_global.php). The affected versions are 1.0, 1.0.1, and 1.1.1.Affected if The installed version matches 1.0, 1.0.1, or 1.1.1 exactly.
-
Confirm password-protected forum is enabledCheck the forum configuration settings. In Invision Board 1.x, password protection could be enabled in the admin control panel under board settings or security settings. Look for options related to 'require password' or 'board password' functionality.Affected if The forum has password protection (board-wide or member group) enabled.
-
Inspect browser cookies for plaintext credentialsWhen logged into the admin panel of a password-protected forum, open browser developer tools and examine all cookies set by the site. Look for cookie values that contain what appears to be a plaintext password or recognizable credential data.Affected if A cookie contains plaintext password or credential data rather than a session identifier.
-
Verify cookie storage method in source codeIf you have access to the source code, search for cookie-setting functions (such as setcookie or similar) in the login/authentication related files. Look for code that stores password values directly into cookies.Affected if The code writes password values directly to cookies without hashing or conversion to session tokens.
The environment is affected if Invision Board version 1.0, 1.0.1, or 1.1.1 is running with password-protected forum enabled and plaintext password is found in cookies.
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 dataReplace plaintext password cookie storage with proper session-based authentication using server-side sessions and secure session identifiers rather than embedding credentials client-side.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-1454 — 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-2003-1454 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