CVE-2004-1633
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 · uneditedprocess_bug.cgi in Bugzilla 2.9 through 2.18rc2 and 2.19 from CVS does not check edit permissions on the keywords field, which allows remote authenticated users to modify the keywords in a bug via the keywordaction 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 confidenceThis is an authorization bypass vulnerability in Bugzilla where process_bug.cgi fails to verify edit permissions before allowing modifications to the keywords field. Authenticated users can exploit the keywordaction parameter to alter keywords on bugs they should not have permission to modify.
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= 2.9= 2.10= 2.12= 2.14= 2.14.1= 2.14.2= 2.14.3= 2.14.4= 2.14.5= 2.16= 2.16.1= 2.16.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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 Bugzilla versionCheck the version file or admin interface. Typically found in data/params file (version parameter) or by accessing the Bugzilla about page/admin panel.Affected if The installed version matches any of these: 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.14.3, 2.14.4, 2.14.5, 2.16, 2.16.1, 2.16.2
-
Verify process_bug.cgi existsLocate the process_bug.cgi script in the Bugzilla web directory (typically in cgi-bin/ or the root Bugzilla directory).Affected if The file exists and is accessible via the web server, which is required for the vulnerability to be exploitable.
-
Confirm keywords field is enabledCheck Bugzilla parameters via the admin interface (Edit Parameters) or in the data/params file to verify the 'usekeyword' or 'keywords' feature is enabled.Affected if Keywords functionality is enabled in the Bugzilla installation, making the vulnerable code path reachable.
-
Inspect permission configuration for keyword editingReview the groups and permissions configuration in Bugzilla admin panel to see which user groups have permission to edit keywords on bugs. Check if there are explicit restrictions on keyword modification.Affected if There are no granular permission controls restricting keyword modifications, or users can modify keywords on bugs outside their group permissions.
The environment is affected if Bugzilla version is one of the listed vulnerable versions AND the keywords feature is enabled AND process_bug.cgi is accessible to authenticated users without proper permission checks on the keywordaction parameter.
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 patches for this vulnerability or manually add permission checks for the keywords field in process_bug.cgi to enforce proper authorization before allowing keyword modifications.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-1633 — 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-2004-1633 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