CVE-2005-2184
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 · uneditedeRoom 6.x does not properly restrict files that can be attached, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a .lnk file.
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 confidenceeRoom 6.x fails to properly restrict file types allowed as attachments, permitting upload of .lnk (Windows shortcut) files. These .lnk files can contain paths to malicious executables, enabling remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the victim's system when the shortcut is clicked.
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= 6.0= 6.0.1= 6.0.2= 6.0.3= 6.0.4= 6.0.5= 6.0.6= 6.0.7CVSS 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 eRoom installationLocate the eRoom installation directory or check system services for 'eRoom' or 'Eroom' processes running on the web serverAffected if eRoom software is present on the system
-
Identify installed eRoom versionCheck the product version by accessing the eRoom web interface help/about page, or inspect version files in the installation directoryAffected if The installed version matches any of the following: 6.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.0.5, 6.0.6, or 6.0.7
-
Verify attachment upload is enabledLog into the eRoom application as an administrator and navigate to the attachment upload configuration or document management settingsAffected if The attachment upload feature is enabled for users
-
Test for .lnk file upload restrictionUsing an authenticated user account, attempt to upload a .lnk file as an attachment to a document or workspace. Alternatively, inspect the file type validation configuration in the application settingsAffected if .lnk files are accepted as valid attachments or no explicit block for .lnk extension exists in the upload allowlist
A user is affected if eRoom versions 6.0 through 6.0.7 are installed with the attachment upload feature enabled and no restriction blocks .lnk file uploads.
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 strict allowlist-based file type validation on all attachment upload points, specifically blocking .lnk files and validating file content (magic bytes) rather than relying solely on file extensions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2184 — 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-2005-2184 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