CVE-2006-2247
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 · uneditedWebCalendar 1.0.1 to 1.0.3 generates different error messages depending on whether or not a username is valid, which allows remote attackers to enumerate valid usernames.
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 confidenceWebCalendar versions 1.0.1 to 1.0.3 exhibit a username enumeration vulnerability where the application returns different error messages for valid versus invalid usernames during authentication. This differential response allows remote attackers to determine which accounts exist in the system, providing valuable reconnaissance information for subsequent attacks.
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= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.0.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify WebCalendar versionLocate the version information in the application - check the login page source, a VERSION file in the web root, or the includes directory for version markers. Compare the found version against the affected range: 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.1, 1.0.2, or 1.0.3
-
Confirm authentication interface is accessibleNavigate to the WebCalendar login page (typically /login.php or /) and verify the application accepts user credentials for authentication.Affected if The login form is accessible and processes authentication requests
-
Test for differential error responsesSubmit two login attempts: one with a likely-valid username (such as 'admin' or 'administrator') and another with a random/invalid username. Capture and compare the error messages returned by each attempt.Affected if The error message for a valid username differs from the error message for an invalid username (e.g., one says 'invalid password' while the other says 'invalid username or password')
-
Verify error message consistencySubmit multiple authentication attempts with various usernames (known and unknown) and document whether all failures return identical error text.Affected if Error messages vary depending on whether the supplied username exists in the system
The environment is affected if WebCalendar version 1.0.1-1.0.3 is installed AND the authentication form returns different error messages for existing versus non-existing usernames.
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 consistent, generic error messages for all authentication failures (e.g., 'Invalid username or password') regardless of whether the username exists, eliminating the information leak that enables enumeration.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2247 — 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-2006-2247 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