CVE-2006-3695
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 · uneditedTrac before 0.9.6 does not disable the "raw" or "include" commands when providing untrusted users with restructured text (reStructuredText) functionality from docutils, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, perform cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, or cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors. NOTE: this might be related to CVE-2006-3458.
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 confidenceTrac before 0.9.6 fails to disable dangerous reStructuredText (docutils) directives when allowing untrusted users to use RST formatting. Specifically, the 'raw' directive (enabling XSS via embedded scripts) and 'include' directive (enabling arbitrary file reads) remain active, permitting remote attackers to read sensitive files, inject malicious scripts, or cause denial of service.
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<= 0.9.5CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Identify Trac installation and versionRun 'trac-admin --version' or check the installed package version via your package manager (e.g., 'pip show trac' or 'rpm -q trac'). Compare the version number to the affected range: versions 0.9.5 and below.Affected if The installed version is 0.9.5 or any earlier version (0.9.0 through 0.9.5).
-
Verify if reStructuredText is enabledCheck the Trac configuration file (trac.ini) for the 'wiki_unsafe_html' or 'wiki_rst' setting, or inspect the permissions granted to users for RST-related functionality.Affected if reStructuredText or RST support is enabled in the Trac configuration.
-
Confirm untrusted users have RST accessReview the permission assignments in Trac (via 'trac-admin <env> permission list' or the web admin interface) to determine if users without full trust (e.g., anonymous users or low-privilege accounts) have permission to create or edit content that renders RST.Affected if Untrusted or anonymous users have permission to use wiki or ticket formatting that supports reStructuredText.
You are affected if your Trac version is 0.9.5 or earlier, reStructuredText is enabled, and untrusted users have access to RST formatting capabilities.
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 Trac to version 0.9.6 or later, which properly disables the raw and include directives for untrusted users. Alternatively, disable reStructuredText functionality for untrusted users or implement input filtering if upgrading is not feasible.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-3695 — 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-2006-3695 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