CVE-2006-6982
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 · unedited3proxy 0.5 to 0.5.2 does not offer NTLM authentication before basic authentication, which might cause browsers with incomplete RFC2616/RFC2617 support to use basic cleartext authentication even if NTLM is available, which makes it easier for attackers to steal credentials.
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 confidence3proxy versions 0.5 to 0.5.2 does not properly negotiate authentication methods, failing to offer NTLM authentication before basic authentication. This causes browsers with incomplete RFC2616/RFC2617 implementation to default to basic cleartext authentication even when NTLM is available, allowing attackers to intercept credentials transmitted in cleartext.
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= 0.5= 0.5.1= 0.5.2CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if 3proxy is installedRun command: which 3proxy or ps aux | grep 3proxy to find the 3proxy binary or processAffected if 3proxy is not found on the system, the system is not affected
-
Determine the installed 3proxy versionRun command: 3proxy --version or check the binary file version informationAffected if The version is 0.5, 0.5.1, or 0.5.2 specifically
-
Verify authentication is enabled in the 3proxy configurationExamine the 3proxy configuration file (typically /etc/3proxy.cfg or /etc/3proxy/3proxy.cfg) for auth directives such as 'auth', 'users', or 'authcache'Affected if Authentication is configured and enabled in the config file
-
Check if proxy is running in cleartext (non-SSL/TLS) modeExamine the proxy listen/interface configuration in the 3proxy config file for port bindings without TLS/SSL wrapper configuration, or check if the service is listening on ports 3128, 8080, or similar without encryptionAffected if The proxy is accepting unencrypted connections on standard HTTP proxy ports
You are affected if 3proxy version 0.5, 0.5.1, or 0.5.2 is installed, authentication is enabled, and the proxy accepts cleartext (non-SSL/TLS) connections where credentials could be transmitted in basic authentication.
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 dataUpgrade to a version that offers NTLM authentication before basic authentication, or configure the proxy to enforce SSL/TLS to protect credentials in transit.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-6982 — 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-2006-6982 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