CVE-2006-6741
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in urlobox in MKPortal allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary messages as an administrator via a delete operation in an img BBcode tag.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in MKPortal's urlobox module allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into deleting arbitrary messages by embedding a malicious delete operation within an img BBcode tag. The attacker crafts a request that the victim's browser automatically submits, exploiting the lack of anti-CSRF tokens on the delete functionality.
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= 1.1CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/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 MKPortal installationLocate MKPortal by checking for typical installation paths such as /mkportal/, /portal/, or search for files containing 'MKPortal' or the file 'index.php' with MKPortal branding in your web root.Affected if MKPortal is not installed on the system.
-
Identify MKPortal versionCheck the version file or admin panel of MKPortal. Common locations include a version.php file, admin dashboard 'About' section, or the file header comments in core PHP files.Affected if The installed version is 1.1 (the affected version).
-
Locate urlobox moduleSearch the modules directory for the urlobox module - typically found in /modules/urlobox/ or similar path within the MKPortal installation directory.Affected if The urlobox module is not present in the installation.
-
Verify urlobox is enabledCheck the MKPortal admin panel under Module Management or inspect the module configuration file to confirm urlobox is enabled and accessible.Affected if The urlobox module is disabled or not accessible.
-
Inspect delete functionality for anti-CSRF protectionExamine the delete message code within the urlobox module (typically in a file handling message deletion). Look for the presence of a random token or session identifier being validated on delete requests.Affected if Delete operations in urlobox lack anti-CSRF token validation.
A system is affected if MKPortal version 1.1 is installed with the urlobox module enabled, and the delete functionality within urlobox does not validate anti-CSRF tokens before processing deletion requests.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) for all state-changing operations including delete actions, and validate the Origin or Referer header to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6741 — 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-2006-6741 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