CVE-2006-1612
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in visview.php in aWebNews 1.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) yname, (2) emailadd, (3) subject, and (4) comment parameters.
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 confidenceaWebNews 1.0 visview.php fails to sanitize user input in four parameters (yname, emailadd, subject, comment), allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML via these form fields. This is a classic reflected XSS vulnerability where unsanitized input is displayed back to users.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Identify aWebNews installationSearch the web document root for 'awebnews' directory or check for visview.php file. Common paths include /awebnews/ or /visview.php in the web root.Affected if aWebNews version 1.0 is installed and visview.php is accessible via web request
-
Confirm product versionCheck the application header, footer, or version file within the aWebNews installation for the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0
-
Verify vulnerable script existsAccess visview.php directly in a browser or via curl to confirm the script exists and renders a form with yname, emailadd, subject, and comment parameters.Affected if visview.php exists and displays form fields accepting user input for those four parameters
-
Test for XSS vulnerabilitySubmit a test payload like <script>alert('XSS')</script> to each of the four parameters (yname, emailadd, subject, comment) via the visview.php form and observe if the payload is rendered unescaped in the response.Affected if The submitted script or HTML tags appear literally in the page output without encoding or sanitization
You are affected if aWebNews 1.0 is installed, visview.php is accessible, and any of the four parameters (yname, emailadd, subject, comment) reflect unsanitized user input back into the HTML output.
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 output encoding/sanitization for all user-supplied input in visview.php before rendering. Validate and escape the yname, emailadd, subject, and comment parameters using context-appropriate encoding (e.g., HTML entity encoding).
- 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-2006-1612 — 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-2006-1612 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