CVE-2006-6621
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 · uneditedFilseclab Personal Firewall 3.0.0.8686 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 confidenceFilseclab Personal Firewall 3.0.0.8686 identifies processes by reading fields from the Windows Process Environment Block (PEB), specifically ImagePathName, CommandLine, and WindowTitle. Local users can manipulate these PEB fields to impersonate trusted processes, allowing them to bypass the firewall's access controls.
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= 7.5.431= 2.3.6.81= 3.0.8686= 3.0.23= 2.05p2= 5.6.2808CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed firewall product and versionOpen Control Panel > Programs and Features, or check the firewall application About/Help section to find the exact product name and version numberAffected if The installed product and version match one of: Avg Antivirus Plus Firewall 7.5.431, Comodo Comodo Personal Firewall 2.3.6.81, Filseclab Personal Firewall 3.0.8686, Infoprocess Antihook 3.0.23, Soft4ever Look N Stop 2.05p2, or Symantec Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6.2808
-
Confirm product uses PEB-based process identificationReview the firewall's process identification method in documentation or logs - these products read ImagePathName, CommandLine, or WindowTitle fields from the Windows Process Environment BlockAffected if The firewall relies on PEB fields (ImagePathName, CommandLine, or WindowTitle) to identify processes rather than using process tokens, digital signatures, or cryptographic verification
-
Check if firewall process protection rules are activeExamine the firewall's access control rules or process monitoring configuration to see if it grants or denies network access based on process identityAffected if The firewall uses process identity from PEB data to make access control decisions, making it susceptible to impersonation attacks
You are affected if you have any of the listed product versions installed and the firewall makes access decisions based on PEB-derived process information.
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 dataReplace Filseclab Personal Firewall with a current, actively maintained firewall solution that uses robust process identification methods (e.g., process tokens, digital signatures, or cryptographic verification) rather than easily-spoofable PEB data structures.
- 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-2006-6621 — 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-2006-6621 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