CVE-2006-6630
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 · uneditedPHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in ListRecords.php in osprey 1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the lib_dir parameter.
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 confidenceosprey 1.0 contains a remote file inclusion vulnerability in ListRecords.php where the lib_dir parameter is not properly validated, allowing remote attackers to specify a URL to a malicious PHP file that will be included and executed by the server.
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= 1.0CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Osprey installationSearch for the Osprey application directory or check web server document roots for 'osprey' folderAffected if Osprey 1.0 is present on the server
-
Identify ListRecords.phpLocate ListRecords.php within the Osprey installation directoryAffected if ListRecords.php file exists in the application
-
Verify PHP execution environmentCheck if the web server is configured to execute PHP scripts and if PHP is installedAffected if PHP is enabled and processing .php files
-
Inspect lib_dir parameter handlingReview the ListRecords.php source code for how the lib_dir parameter is processed and whether it allows URL-based inputAffected if The lib_dir parameter accepts external URLs without validation
-
Check PHP configurationExamine PHP configuration for allow_url_include settingAffected if allow_url_include is enabled (makes exploitation easier but not required)
If Osprey 1.0 is installed with ListRecords.php accessible and the lib_dir parameter accepts unvalidated input, the environment is vulnerable to remote file inclusion.
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 dataDisable PHP's allow_url_include directive and implement strict input validation on the lib_dir parameter to restrict it to local paths only, or upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6630 — 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-2006-6630 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