CVE-2005-1908
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 · uneditedPerception LiteWeb allows remote attackers to bypass access controls for files via an extra leading / (slash) or leading \ (backslash) in the URL.
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 confidencePerception LiteWeb contains a path traversal vulnerability in its access control mechanism. Attackers can bypass file access restrictions by prefixing requested file paths with an extra forward slash (/) or backslash (\) in the URL. This allows unauthorized access to sensitive files outside the intended web root or protected directories.
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= 2.5CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 LiteWeb installationCheck if Perception LiteWeb is installed on the system by looking for the liteweb.exe or related executable files in the web server directories.Affected if LiteWeb is installed and running as the web server
-
Identify LiteWeb versionCheck the version of the installed LiteWeb server. This can typically be found in the application itself, its binary properties, or any version information file included with the installation.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.5 (the only affected version listed)
-
Verify access control configurationExamine the LiteWeb configuration files to determine if access controls or file restrictions are enabled. Look for settings related to restricted directories, protected files, or access control rules.Affected if Access control restrictions are configured and enforced on the web server
-
Test path traversal bypassSend HTTP requests to the LiteWeb server with URLs that prefix file paths with an extra forward slash (/) or backslash (\) to attempt to access files outside the web root. For example: request /../ or \..\ in the URL path.Affected if Requests with extra path separators successfully bypass access controls and return files that should be restricted
A system is affected if it runs Perception LiteWeb version 2.5 with access control restrictions enabled, and the path traversal bypass test successfully returns restricted files.
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 available vendor patches for Perception LiteWeb. If no patch exists, implement URL normalization logic in the web server to strip redundant path separators before performing access control checks, or deploy a web application firewall (WAF) to block requests with malformed path prefixes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1908 — 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-2005-1908 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