CVE-2006-2676
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 · uneditedDispatch.cgi/_user/uservCard/ in SiteScape Forum 7.2 and possibly earlier generates different responses in a way that 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 confidenceThe Dispatch.cgi script in SiteScape Forum 7.2 handles user card lookup requests via the /_user/uservCard/ endpoint. The application returns measurably different responses (status codes, error messages, or timing) when queried with valid versus invalid usernames, allowing remote attackers to perform user enumeration via systematic brute-force probing of this endpoint.
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= 7.2CVSS 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.
-
Confirm SiteScape Forum installationLocate the SiteScape Forum installation directory and identify if the Dispatch.cgi script exists in the web root or cgi-bin directory.Affected if Dispatch.cgi is present in the web-accessible cgi directory.
-
Verify product versionCheck the installed version of SiteScape Forum by reviewing version files, about pages, or the application banner. Common locations include the installation directory, admin interface, or server headers.Affected if The installed version is exactly 7.2.
-
Locate the vulnerable endpointVerify the presence of the /_user/uservCard/ endpoint by checking if Dispatch.cgi handles requests to /_user/uservCard/ path. This is typically accessible via the web server's cgi-bin.Affected if The /_user/uservCard/ endpoint is accessible and processed by Dispatch.cgi.
-
Test for differential responsesSend two HTTP requests to the uservCard endpoint: one with a known-valid username (such as admin) and one with a random invalid username. Compare the HTTP status codes, error messages, or response times between the two requests.Affected if The responses differ measurably between valid and invalid usernames, indicating the vulnerability is present.
If SiteScape Forum 7.2 is installed with the Dispatch.cgi script and the /_user/uservCard/ endpoint returns measurably different responses for valid versus invalid usernames, the environment is affected by CVE-2006-2676.
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 dataApply any available vendor patches for SiteScape Forum; if no patch exists, modify the application to return consistent responses regardless of username validity, implement rate limiting on the endpoint, and consider migrating to a supported platform.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2676 — 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-2006-2676 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