CVE-2006-6466
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 cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in WBmap.php in WikyBlog 1.3.2 and earlier allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) key, (2) d, (3) l, or (4) v parameter. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information. NOTE: CVE disputes the l vector because l is validated by ctype_alpha before use.
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 confidenceMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities exist in WBmap.php in WikyBlog 1.3.2 and earlier. The key, d, and v parameters are not properly sanitized before being used in web output, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML. Note that the 'l' parameter is validated by ctype_alpha before use, mitigating that vector.
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<= 1.3.2CVSS 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.
-
Locate WBmap.php fileSearch the web root directory for the file WBmap.php. Common paths include /path/to/wikyblog/includes/WBmap.php or /path/to/wikyblog/util/WBmap.php.Affected if The file exists in the installation directory.
-
Identify WikyBlog versionCheck for a version file (如 version.php, CHANGELOG, or README) in the WikyBlog root directory, or inspect the header comments in WBmap.php for a version identifier.Affected if The version is 1.3.2 or earlier.
-
Confirm WBmap.php is web-accessibleAttempt to access WBmap.php via HTTP (e.g., curl http://yourdomain/path/to/WBmap.php) or check the web server configuration for Alias or RewriteRule directives that map this file to a URL.Affected if WBmap.php is reachable over HTTP/HTTPS.
-
Inspect parameter handling in WBmap.phpOpen WBmap.php in a text editor and locate the code that handles the 'key', 'd', and 'v' parameters (typically via $_GET or $_REQUEST). Verify whether these parameters are passed through htmlspecialchars, ENT_QUOTES, or another sanitization function before being echoed to HTML.Affected if The parameters are echoed to output without sanitization (no htmlspecialchars, ENT_QUOTES, or equivalent encoding).
A user is affected if WikyBlog version 1.3.2 or earlier is installed, WBmap.php is web-accessible, and the 'key', 'd', or 'v' parameters in WBmap.php are output without sanitization.
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 input validation and output encoding for the key, d, and v parameters in WBmap.php. Use context-appropriate output encoding (e.g., htmlspecialchars with ENT_QUOTES) for all user-supplied data before rendering in HTML.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6466 — 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-2006-6466 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