CVE-2006-6685
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 · uneditedHeap-based buffer overflow in Pedro Lineu Orso chetcpasswd 2.3.3 allows local users to cause a denial of service (application crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long REMOTE_ADDR environment variable. NOTE: The provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow in chetcpasswd 2.3.3 allows local users to trigger the vulnerability by setting a long REMOTE_ADDR environment variable, potentially leading to application crash or arbitrary code execution. The overflow occurs in heap memory, which can be exploited to overwrite adjacent memory structures.
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= 2.3.3CVSS 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 if chetcpasswd is installedRun 'which chetcpasswd' or search for the binary in common paths like /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, /cgi-bin/Affected if The chetcpasswd binary exists on the system
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'chetcpasswd --version' or check the package manager if installed via rpm/aptAffected if The version is 2.3.3 exactly
-
Verify the application processes REMOTE_ADDR environment variableInspect the application source code if available, or check if chetcpasswd runs as a CGI script or web interfaceAffected if The application processes the REMOTE_ADDR environment variable from HTTP requests
-
Check for web/CGI exposureLook for chetcpasswd in web server directories (/var/www/cgi-bin/, /usr/lib/cgi-bin/) or configuration files referencing itAffected if The application is configured to run as a CGI or web-facing script
-
Test for long REMOTE_ADDR input processingIf accessible as CGI, send a request with an abnormally long REMOTE_ADDR header value and observe application behaviorAffected if The application accepts and processes long REMOTE_ADDR values without proper bounds checking
The environment is affected if chetcpasswd version 2.3.3 is installed and configured to process the REMOTE_ADDR environment variable, such as when running as a CGI/web application.
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 dataSince this is a 2006 vulnerability in likely obsolete software, primary options include: upgrading to a patched version if available, implementing strict input length validation on the REMOTE_ADDR environment variable before use, or replacing the software with a maintained alternative.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6685 — 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-2006-6685 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