CVE-2007-0550
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 scripting (XSS) vulnerability in search.php in 212cafeBoard 0.08 Beta allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via keyword 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 confidenceA stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the search.php file of 212cafeBoard 0.08 Beta. The keyword parameter accepted by the search function does not properly sanitize or validate user input before reflecting it back in the search results page, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML code.
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= 0.08_betaCVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 212cafeboard installationIdentify if the 212cafeboard software is present on the system. Check for directories or files containing '212cafe' or '212cafeboard' in the web root.Affected if The software is installed on the server
-
Verify the version numberLocate version information for the installed 212cafeboard instance (check version files, headers, or the application itself) and compare it to 0.08_beta.Affected if The installed version is 0.08_beta
-
Locate search.phpFind the search.php file within the 212cafeboard installation directory.Affected if The search.php file exists in the application
-
Check search functionality accessDetermine if the search functionality is accessible to users (check if the search feature is enabled or exposed via web interface).Affected if The search feature is accessible and functional
-
Inspect keyword parameter handlingExamine the search.php code to verify whether the keyword parameter is validated or sanitized before being output in search results.Affected if The keyword parameter is not properly sanitized or validated before output
A user is affected if 212cafeboard version 0.08_beta is installed, the search.php file exists, and the search functionality is accessible without proper input validation on the keyword parameter.
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 proper input validation and output encoding for the keyword parameter in search.php. Use context-appropriate output encoding (HTML entity encoding) when displaying search terms in results, and consider implementing a Content Security Policy (CSP) as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-0550 — 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-2007-0550 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