CVE-2006-4876
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 · uneditedMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Jupiter CMS allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via (1) the user name during login, or the (2) key or (3) fpwusername parameters in modules/register.
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 confidenceJupiter CMS contains multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands. The vulnerabilities exist in the login function (user name parameter) and the register module (key and fpwusername parameters). This is a classic SQL injection where user input is not properly sanitized before being used 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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 Jupiter CMS installationSearch your web root for files containing Jupiter CMS branding, copyright notices, or the 'jupiter' directory structure. Check for index.php or main entry files labeled as Jupiter CMS.Affected if Jupiter CMS files are found in your web directory
-
Identify login functionalityLocate the login form in your Jupiter CMS installation - typically in the user authentication module. Check the PHP files handling the login POST request for SQL query execution.Affected if Login functionality exists and processes user input in SQL queries without parameterized statements
-
Identify register moduleLocate the user registration PHP files in your Jupiter CMS installation. Check for the 'key' and 'fpwusername' parameters in the registration or password recovery logic.Affected if Register module handles 'key' or 'fpwusername' parameters in SQL queries without parameterized statements
-
Check for input sanitizationReview the code handling the username, key, and fpwusername parameters. Verify whether user input is passed directly into SQL statements or properly escaped/parameterized.Affected if User input from these parameters is directly concatenated into SQL queries without sanitization or prepared statements
Your environment is affected if Jupiter CMS is installed and the login or register module processes user input (username, key, or fpwusername parameters) directly into SQL queries without using parameterized queries or prepared statements.
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 dataFix requires implementing parameterized queries or prepared statements for all three identified entry points (login username, register key, and fpwusername parameters). Input validation and escaping should be added as defense-in-depth, and a WAF should be considered as a temporary protective measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-4876 — 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-2006-4876 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