CVE-2006-4659
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 · uneditedThe Panda Platinum Internet Security 2006 10.02.01 and 2007 11.00.00 uses predictable URLs for the spam classification of each message, which allows remote attackers to cause Panda to classify arbitrary messages as spam via a web page that contains IMG tags with the predictable URLs. NOTE: this issue could also be regarded as a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
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 confidencePanda Platinum Internet Security 2006/2007 uses predictable URLs for its spam classification feature. Remote attackers can exploit this by embedding these predictable URLs in IMG tags on malicious web pages, causing the security software to incorrectly classify arbitrary messages as spam. This is effectively a CSRF-type vulnerability where the lack of anti-CSRF tokens or proper request validation allows attackers to trigger spam classification actions remotely.
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= 2006_10.02.01= 2007_11.00.00CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Check if Panda Platinum Internet Security is installedLook for installation directories (typically C:\Program Files\Panda Software\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Panda Software\), check Add/Remove Programs, or look for Panda processes in Task ManagerAffected if Panda Platinum Internet Security version 2006 or 2007 is installed
-
Identify the installed version numberCheck the program's About or Help > About section, or look in the Windows Registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Panda Software\ or the program's installation folder for version informationAffected if Version matches 2006_10.02.01 or 2007_11.00.00 exactly
-
Verify the spam classification component is presentOpen the Panda software interface and navigate to the spam/anti-spam configuration section, or check for related services (such as PAVSPAM or similar Panda spam-related services)Affected if The spam classification feature module exists and is loaded
-
Confirm web protection or email protection is activeCheck if the web shield or email monitoring component is enabled in the Panda software settings, or verify related services are runningAffected if Web protection or email scanning is enabled and monitoring traffic
You are affected if Panda Platinum Internet Security version 2006_10.02.01 or 2007_11.00.00 is installed with the spam classification feature enabled and web/email protection active.
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 to a current version of Panda security software or migrate to an alternative solution, as these older versions are likely end-of-life. If continued use is required, implement anti-CSRF tokens and proper session validation for all spam classification endpoints.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-4659 — 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-2006-4659 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