CVE-2006-1676
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in the display function in the Topics module for MAXdev MDPro (MD-Pro) 1.0.73 and 1.0.72, and possibly other versions before 1.076, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the topicid parameter in a display action, which is not properly handled in PNuserapi.PHP.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in MAXdev MDPro allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands through the topicid parameter in the Topics module's display function. The parameter is not properly sanitized in PNuserapi.php before being used in SQL queries.
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<= 1.0.75= 1.0.72= 1.0.73CVSS 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
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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 installed MD-Pro versionCheck your web application's version file, admin panel, or version header. Common locations include a version.php file in the root directory or the admin interface.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.72, 1.0.73, or any version 1.0.75 or lower.
-
Locate the Topics module fileFind the file PNuserapi.php in the Topics module directory. Search for modules/Topics/pnuserapi.php or similar path structure within your MD-Pro installation.Affected if The file exists and contains the display function that handles the topicid parameter.
-
Verify vulnerable parameter handlingExamine PNuserapi.php in the Topics module and locate the display function. Check if the topicid parameter is used directly in SQL queries without proper sanitization or parameterized queries.Affected if The topicid parameter is concatenated directly into SQL queries without escaping, prepared statements, or input validation.
-
Confirm Topics module is activeCheck your MD-Pro module administration panel to verify if the Topics module is enabled and accessible on your site.Affected if The Topics module is installed and enabled, making the vulnerable code path accessible to remote attackers.
You are affected if your MD-Pro installation version is 1.0.75 or lower, the Topics module is enabled, and the topicid parameter in PNuserapi.php is used in SQL queries without sanitization or parameterized queries.
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 MD-Pro version 1.0.76 or later, or apply input validation/parameterized queries to the topicid parameter in PNuserapi.php to prevent SQL injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-1676 — 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-2006-1676 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