CVE-2005-1586
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 · uneditedQuick.Forum 2.1.6 stores potentially sensitive information such as usernames, banned IP addresses, censored words, and backups under the web document root, which allows remote attackers to obtain that information via a direct request to (1) db/users.txt, (2) db/banList.txt, (3) db/censureWords.txt, or (4) backup files.
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 confidenceQuick.Forum 2.1.6 stores sensitive files containing usernames, banned IP addresses, censored words, and database backups in the web document root under the db/ directory. These files are directly accessible via HTTP requests (e.g., db/users.txt, db/banList.txt), allowing remote attackers to retrieve this sensitive information without authentication.
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= 2.1.6CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Quick.forum versionLocate the version identifier in the application (typically in an index.php file, about.php, or a VERSION file in the installation directory). Compare this version to 2.1.6.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.1.6.
-
Locate the db directoryIdentify the web document root where Quick.forum is installed. Check if a 'db' subdirectory exists within the web-accessible path.Affected if A db/ directory exists within the web document root.
-
List sensitive files in db/Use file system access to enumerate files in the db/ directory. Look for files such as users.txt, banList.txt, censored.txt, or any files with .sql, .gz, .zip, or backup extensions.Affected if Files containing usernames, banned IPs, censored words, or database backups are present in the db/ directory.
-
Test HTTP access to db/ filesUsing a web browser or HTTP client, attempt to retrieve a known file from the db/ directory via HTTP, for example: http://example.com/db/users.txt or http://example.com/db/banList.txt.Affected if The sensitive files are directly accessible and returned over HTTP without authentication.
If Quick.forum version 2.1.6 is running and any sensitive files in the db/ directory are accessible via HTTP requests, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 dataMove sensitive data files outside the web document root or configure the web server to deny direct HTTP access to the db/ directory and backup files. Alternatively, implement authentication and access controls for these files.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1586 — 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-2005-1586 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