CVE-2006-3263
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 Weblinks module (weblinks.php) in Mambo 4.6rc1 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the catid 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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in Mambo's WebLinks module (weblinks.php) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands through the catid parameter due to unsanitized user input being used directly 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<= 4.6CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Confirm Mambo installationLocate the Mambo CMS installation by checking for /administrator/ directory or looking for index.php with Mambo branding in the web rootAffected if The target system is running Mambo CMS
-
Identify Mambo versionOpen the version.php file (typically in /includes/ or the root directory) or check the administrator dashboard for the version numberAffected if The installed Mambo version is 4.6 or any earlier version (4.0, 4.5, etc.)
-
Locate WebLinks moduleSearch the web root for weblinks.php, typically found in /modules/weblinks.php or /components/com_weblinks/weblinks.phpAffected if The weblinks.php file exists in the installation
-
Verify vulnerable parameter handlingOpen weblinks.php and locate the SQL query that uses the catid parameter. Search for patterns like 'WHERE catid=' or 'catid $' followed by direct use of $_GET['catid'] or $_REQUEST['catid'] without sanitization functions such as intval() or database escapingAffected if The catid parameter is used directly in a SQL query without proper sanitization, escaping, or parameterized binding
A user is affected if they run Mambo version 4.6 or lower with the WebLinks module installed and the catid parameter handled in an unsanitized manner in weblinks.php.
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 dataReplace dynamic SQL query construction with parameterized queries/prepared statements and implement proper input validation on the catid parameter.
- 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-2006-3263 — 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-2006-3263 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