CVE-2006-0932
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in zip.lib.php 0.1.1 in PEAR::Archive_Zip allows remote attackers to create and overwrite arbitrary files via certain crafted pathnames in a ZIP archive.
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 confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in PEAR::Archive_Zip's zip.lib.php (version 0.1.1) allows remote attackers to write arbitrary files by embedding '..' path traversal sequences in filenames within a crafted ZIP archive, enabling file overwrite or creation outside the intended extraction directory.
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= 1.1CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Identify PEAR::Archive_Zip installationRun 'pear list' or 'pear info Archive_Zip' to retrieve the installed version of the Archive_Zip packageAffected if The package is not installed or the version cannot be determined from the PEAR registry
-
Verify the exact version numberCheck the version string returned by the pear command; look for version 1.1 or any version matching the affected rangeAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.1 as specified in the affected products list
-
Locate the zip.lib.php fileFind the installed Archive_Zip package directory (typically in PEAR's include path) and locate zip.lib.php; check the file header or documentation for version metadataAffected if The file version metadata shows 1.1 or 0.1.1
-
Determine if extraction from untrusted ZIP archives is performedReview application code that uses Archive_Zip to extract archives; look for calls to extract() or unzip methods processing user-supplied or external ZIP filesAffected if The application extracts ZIP files from untrusted sources using Archive_Zip's extraction methods
-
Check if path traversal sequences are validatedInspect the extraction code flow in zip.lib.php or wrapper code for validation logic that rejects '..' sequences in filenames during extractionAffected if No path validation exists and untrusted archives with '..' sequences in filenames can be extracted to arbitrary directories
A user is affected if PEAR::Archive_Zip version 1.1 is installed and the application uses it to extract ZIP archives from untrusted sources without additional path traversal validation.
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 patched version of PEAR::Archive_Zip that implements proper path validation and sanitization, rejecting path traversal sequences in filenames during extraction, or implement application-layer validation to neutralize '..' sequences before passing archives for extraction.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $3,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-0932 — 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-2006-0932 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