Antivirus Plus FirewallApplication · Avg

CVE-2006-6618

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v2.0 Published 2006-12-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
AntiHook 3.0.0.23 - Desktop relies on the Process Environment Block (PEB) to identify a process, which allows local users to bypass the product's controls on a process by spoofing the (1) ImagePathName, (2) CommandLine, and (3) WindowTitle fields in the PEB.

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 confidence

AntiHook 3.0.0.23 uses the Process Environment Block (PEB) to identify processes for its security controls. Local users can spoof the ImagePathName, CommandLine, and WindowTitle fields in the PEB to bypass these controls.

MitigationImplement more robust process verification methods that do not rely solely on PEB data, such as using cryptographic process signatures, verified digital certificates, or multiple independent verification mechanisms.

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
Antivirus Plus FirewallApplication
Affected:= 7.5.431
Comodo Personal FirewallApplication
Affected:= 2.3.6.81
Personal FirewallApplication
Affected:= 3.0.8686
AntihookApplication
Affected:= 3.0.23
Look N StopApplication
Affected:= 2.05p2
Sygate Personal FirewallApplication
Affected:= 5.6.2808

CVSS 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
Local
Complexity
Low
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Complete
Integrity
Complete
Availability
Complete

AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed security products
    Open Control Panel > Programs and Features (or 'Add or Remove Programs' on older systems) and look for any of these: AVG Antivirus Plus Firewall, Comodo Personal Firewall, Filseclab Personal Firewall, Antihook, Look N Stop, or Symantec Sygate Personal Firewall
    Affected if Any of these six products are installed on the system
  2. Check product version
    Right-click on the installed product in the programs list and select Properties, or launch the product and look in its About/Help section to find the exact version number
    Affected if The installed version matches exactly: AVG 7.5.431, Comodo 2.3.6.81, Filseclab 3.0.8686, Antihook 3.0.23, Look N Stop 2.05p2, or Sygate 5.6.2808
  3. Verify PEB-based process monitoring is active
    Examine the firewall or antihook configuration for process protection rules. In the product settings, look for process control, application control, or program monitoring features that rely on reading PEB fields (ImagePathName, CommandLine, or WindowTitle)
    Affected if The product has process-based security controls enabled that rely on reading PEB information from running processes
  4. Confirm process spoofing is possible
    Use a process viewer tool (such as Process Explorer from Sysinternals) to inspect the PEB fields of a test process and verify they can be modified, or check if the firewall allows whitelisting by process name alone without cryptographic verification
    Affected if The product identifies trusted processes solely by PEB data (process name, path, or command line) without additional verification like digital signatures or cryptographic hashes

A system is affected if any of the six listed products are installed at the exact vulnerable version and the product's process-based security controls rely on PEB data for identification without additional verification mechanisms.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement more robust process verification methods that do not rely solely on PEB data, such as using cryptographic process signatures, verified digital certificates, or multiple independent verification mechanisms.

Fix this in Antivirus Plus Firewall Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
27.0 hours of engineering $4,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6618 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2006-6618 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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