CVE-2007-1679
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Horde Groupware Webmail 1.0 allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors in (1) imp/search.php and (2) ingo/rule.php. NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the vendor, noting that the search.php issue was resolved in CVE-2006-4255, and attackers can only use rule.php to inject XSS into their own pages
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Horde Groupware Webmail 1.0 allow authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors in imp/search.php and ingo/rule.php. The vendor disputes the search.php issue, claiming it was already resolved in CVE-2006-4255, and contends that rule.php only permits self-XSS injection.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm Horde Groupware Webmail versionLocate the version identifier in the Horde installation (typically in a version file, README, or admin interface). Common paths include the root Horde directory or a config file.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0 (Horde Groupware Webmail 1.0)
-
Identify imp/search.php file presenceLocate the imp/search.php file within the webmail installation directory structure.Affected if The file exists in the installation and the installed version is 1.0
-
Identify ingo/rule.php file presenceLocate the ingo/rule.php file within the webmail installation directory structure.Affected if The file exists in the installation and the installed version is 1.0
-
Verify authentication context for imp/search.phpDetermine whether the imp/search.php component handles user-supplied search queries without proper output encoding when the user is authenticated.Affected if Authenticated users can submit search queries through imp/search.php that are reflected in the response without sanitization
-
Verify authentication context for ingo/rule.phpDetermine whether the ingo/rule.php component handles rule parameters without proper output encoding when the user is authenticated.Affected if Authenticated users can submit rule definitions through ingo/rule.php that are reflected in the response without sanitization
The environment is affected if Horde Groupware Webmail 1.0 is installed and the imp/search.php or ingo/rule.php components reflect user-supplied input without proper output encoding for authenticated users.
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 dataApply output encoding and input validation/sanitization to user-supplied data in the affected PHP files. Consider implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1679 — 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-2007-1679 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