ChetcpasswdApplication · Chetcpasswd Project

CVE-2006-6682

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2006-12-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
Pedro Lineu Orso chetcpasswd 2.3.3 provides a different error message when a request with a valid username fails, compared to a request with an invalid username, which allows remote attackers to determine valid usernames on the system.

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

The chetcpasswd 2.3.3 application returns distinct error messages when password change requests fail for valid usernames versus invalid usernames. An attacker can exploit this difference to enumerate valid user accounts on the system by observing which error message is returned for various usernames.

MitigationStandardize error messages so that identical messages are returned for both valid and invalid usernames during failed password change attempts, preventing username enumeration.

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
ChetcpasswdApplication
Affected:= 2.3.3

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
None
Availability
None

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

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. Locate chetcpasswd installation
    Search for chetcpasswd files on the system using commands like 'find / -name "chetcpasswd*" 2>/dev/null' or check common cgi-bin directories such as /var/www/cgi-bin/ or /usr/lib/cgi-bin/
    Affected if chetcpasswd is found on the system
  2. Identify installed version
    Check the version by viewing the chetcpasswd script or CGI file for version strings, or use package management commands if installed via package manager
    Affected if version is 2.3.3 or if the file contains version 2.3.3 metadata
  3. Test password change with valid username
    Access the chetcpasswd web interface and attempt a password change for a username you know exists, using an incorrect current password. Note the exact error message returned.
    Affected if a specific error message is returned for valid usernames (such as indicating the current password is incorrect)
  4. Test password change with invalid username
    Attempt a password change for a clearly non-existent username. Use any password. Note the exact error message returned.
    Affected if a different error message is returned for invalid usernames compared to step 3

If different error messages are returned in steps 3 and 4, the system is vulnerable to username enumeration via CVE-2006-6682.

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

Standardize error messages so that identical messages are returned for both valid and invalid usernames during failed password change attempts, preventing username enumeration.

Fix this in Chetcpasswd Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing1.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,090
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6682 — 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-2006-6682 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