CVE-2005-4575
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 · uneditedPaperThin CommonSpot Content Server 4.5 and earlier allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via an invalid errmsg parameter to loader.cfm with a url parameter set to email-login-info.cfm, which leaks the full pathname in the resulting error message.
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 confidencePaperThin CommonSpot Content Server 4.5 and earlier contains an information disclosure vulnerability where an attacker can obtain the full server filesystem pathname by supplying an invalid errmsg parameter to loader.cfm with a url parameter set to email-login-info.cfm, causing the full path to be revealed in the resulting error message.
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<= 4.5= 2.5= 3.0= 3.2= 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
- 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 CommonSpot installationCheck for the presence of CommonSpot by searching for files named 'commonspot' or 'CommonSpot' in the web root, or look for ColdFusion pages referencing 'CommonSpot' or 'ContentServer' in their code.Affected if CommonSpot Content Server is installed on the server.
-
Identify installed CommonSpot versionCheck the version by reviewing any version.txt, version.cfm, or metadata files in the CommonSpot installation directory. Alternatively, check the headers or source code of any CommonSpot admin pages for version strings.Affected if The installed version is 4.5 or earlier, specifically 2.5, 3.0, 3.2, or 4.0.
-
Verify loader.cfm exists and is accessibleLocate the loader.cfm file within the CommonSpot web directory structure. Attempt to access it directly via HTTP to confirm it is reachable.Affected if loader.cfm exists and is publicly accessible on the web server.
-
Test the vulnerable URL patternSend an HTTP request to loader.cfm with the parameters 'url=email-login-info.cfm' and an invalid value for 'errmsg' (for example: loader.cfm?url=email-login-info.cfm&errmsg=test). Examine the error response for disclosure of the full server filesystem path.Affected if The error response displays the complete server filesystem path, indicating the vulnerability is present.
If CommonSpot version 4.5 or earlier is running and loader.cfm is accessible, the server is affected by this path disclosure vulnerability.
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 dataUpgrade to a version of PaperThin CommonSpot Content Server newer than 4.5 that addresses this vulnerability, or implement custom error handling in loader.cfm to sanitize error messages and prevent path disclosure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-4575 — 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-2005-4575 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