CVE-2006-6192
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 · uneditedUnspecified scripts in the admin directory in 8pixel.net SimpleBlog 3.0 and earlier do not properly perform authentication, which allows remote attackers to add users and perform certain other unauthorized privileged actions. NOTE: The provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
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 · moderate confidenceAuthentication bypass vulnerability in SimpleBlog 3.0 and earlier allows remote attackers to access unspecified admin scripts without proper credentials, enabling unauthorized user creation and other privileged actions.
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= 2.0= 2.1= 2.2= 2.3= 3.0CVSS 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.
-
Locate SimpleBlog installationSearch the web server for files or directories named 'simpleblog', 'blog', or similar. Check common web root locations for PHP files with 'blog' in the name or a 'simpleblog' directory.Affected if SimpleBlog software is found on the system
-
Identify installed versionExamine the main PHP file (such as index.php, config.php, or a version/include file) for a version string or check the source code for version comments. Also check for a README or VERSION file in the installation directory.Affected if The version number displayed is 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 3.0
-
Verify admin directory exists and is web-accessibleCheck for an 'admin' directory in the SimpleBlog installation folder. Confirm it is accessible via the web server (exists under the document root).Affected if An admin directory is present and web-accessible
-
Test admin script access without credentialsAttempt to access common admin script names (such as admin.php, admin/index.php, or admin/add_user.php) directly via HTTP request without providing any authentication credentials.Affected if Admin scripts can be accessed and execute without requiring login credentials
The environment is affected if SimpleBlog version 2.0 through 3.0 is installed and its admin directory/scripts are accessible without authentication.
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 dataImplement proper authentication checks on all scripts in the admin directory and restrict access to administrative functions. If the software is no longer maintained, consider migrating to a supported blogging platform.
- 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-2006-6192 — 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-2006-6192 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