CVE-2006-2475
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 (1) edit_mailtexte.cgi and (2) bestmail.cgi in Cosmoshop 8.11.106 and earlier allows remote administrators to read arbitrary files via ".." sequences in the file parameter.
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 confidenceA directory traversal vulnerability in Cosmoshop's edit_mailtexte.cgi and bestmail.cgi scripts allows remote administrators to read arbitrary files on the server by using '..' sequences in the file parameter, potentially exposing sensitive system files.
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<= 8.11.106= 8.10.78CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/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.
-
Locate Cosmoshop CGI scriptsSearch for edit_mailtexte.cgi and bestmail.cgi in your web server's cgi-bin or cgi directories. These are the two scripts referenced in the CVE.Affected if Either script exists on the server, indicating Cosmoshop is installed.
-
Identify Cosmoshop versionCheck for version files, headers, or the scripts themselves for version strings. Common locations include a version file in the Cosmoshop installation directory or within the CGI script comments.Affected if The installed version is 8.11.106 or lower, or exactly 8.10.78.
-
Verify script accessibilityConfirm the vulnerable CGI scripts are accessible via HTTP/HTTPS on your web server. The vulnerability requires the scripts to be reachable by remote administrators.Affected if The scripts are accessible over the network without additional authentication barriers beyond admin login.
-
Test file parameter for traversalIf you are the administrator, inspect the script code or test the file parameter with a benign path like test..\.txt to observe if path traversal is accepted or validated.Affected if The file parameter accepts path traversal sequences like '..' without rejection or sanitization, allowing arbitrary file access.
Your environment is affected if Cosmoshop is installed with version 8.11.106 or lower (or exactly 8.10.78) and the edit_mailtexte.cgi or bestmail.cgi scripts are accessible with the file parameter accepting unsanitized path traversal input.
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 strict input validation on the file parameter to reject path traversal sequences ('..'), or upgrade to a patched version of Cosmoshop if available.
- 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-2006-2475 — 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-2006-2475 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