CVE-2007-3705
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in FuseTalk 2.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the FTVAR_SUBCAT (txForumID) parameter to forum/index.cfm and possibly other unspecified components, related to forum/include/error/forumerror.cfm.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in FuseTalk 2.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the FTVAR_SUBCAT (txForumID) parameter to forum/index.cfm, with potential impact also on forum/include/error/forumerror.cfm.
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= 2.0CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify FuseTalk installation and versionSearch the web server for FuseTalk installation directories (typically under /fusebox, /forums, or the web root). Look for version information in readme files, about pages, or the admin interface. Check ColdFusion administrator for installed applications.Affected if FuseTalk version 2.0 is installed on the server
-
Locate vulnerable file forum/index.cfmSearch for the file forum/index.cfm within the FuseTalk installation directory. This is the primary attack vector. Use file system search or check the application's directory structure.Affected if The file forum/index.cfm exists in the FuseTalk installation and processes the txForumID parameter
-
Check for error handler file forumerror.cfmLocate the file forum/include/error/forumerror.cfm within the FuseTalk installation. This file may also process the vulnerable txForumID parameter.Affected if The file forum/include/error/forumerror.cfm exists and processes user-supplied input
-
Inspect parameter processing in affected filesExamine the source code of index.cfm and forumerror.cfm for direct use of the txForumID or FTVAR_SUBCAT parameter in SQL queries without proper sanitization or parameterized queries.Affected if The code uses txForumID or FTVAR_SUBCAT parameter values directly in SQL statements without input validation or prepared statements
-
Verify application is accessible to remote usersConfirm that the FuseTalk web interface is exposed to untrusted network access. Check web server configuration for public or unauthenticated access to the forum functionality.Affected if The FuseTalk application is accessible from untrusted network locations and processes user requests
The environment is affected if FuseTalk version 2.0 is installed with the file forum/index.cfm (or forum/include/error/forumerror.cfm) present and the txForumID parameter is processed in SQL queries without parameterized statements.
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 parameterized queries or prepared statements for the txForumID parameter and all user-supplied inputs in the affected ColdFusion files to prevent SQL injection.
- 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-2007-3705 — 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-2007-3705 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