CVE-2004-1994
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 · uneditedFuseTalk 4.0 allows remote attackers to ban other users via a direct request to banning.cfm.
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 confidenceFuseTalk 4.0 contains a broken access control vulnerability in banning.cfm. The page that handles user banning lacks proper authorization checks, allowing any remote unauthenticated attacker to ban arbitrary users from the forum by directly requesting the banning.cfm endpoint.
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= 2.0= 3.0= 4.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify FuseTalk versionLocate the FuseTalk installation and check version files (such as version.txt, about.cfm, or admin configuration files) or check HTTP headers/server responses for version informationAffected if The installed version matches 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0
-
Locate banning.cfmSearch for the banning.cfm file in the web root or forum-related directories (typical paths may include /forum/, /fuseforum/, or /cfusion/ under the web root)Affected if The banning.cfm file exists in the installation
-
Test unauthenticated access to banning.cfmMake an HTTP request to banning.cfm without providing any authentication credentials or session cookiesAffected if The page loads or returns a response without requiring login or authorization
-
Verify authorization checks are missingInspect the banning.cfm source code for session validation, role checks, or admin privilege verification before executing ban operationsAffected if No server-side authorization, session validation, or role checking code is present in banning.cfm
A user is affected if they are running FuseTalk versions 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 with the banning.cfm file accessible and lacking proper authorization controls on the user banning functionality.
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 dataImplement role-based access control on banning.cfm to ensure only authenticated administrators can access the user banning functionality. Validate session credentials and user roles server-side before executing any ban operations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-1994 — 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-2004-1994 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