CVE-2007-5165
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 · uneditedPHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in init.php in Jens Tkotz myIpacNG-stats (MINGS) 0.05 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the MINGS_BASE parameter. NOTE: this issue is disputed by CVE because MINGS_BASE is defined before use
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 confidenceClaimed remote file inclusion vulnerability in init.php of myIpacNG-stats (MINGS) 0.05 via the MINGS_BASE parameter. However, CVE includes a dispute noting that MINGS_BASE is defined before use, which would prevent the RFI attack.
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= 0.05CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed myIpacNG-stats versionLocate version information in the application root directory, typically in a file named VERSION, README, or within the main PHP files. Search for version strings like '0.05' or 'MINGS' in source files.Affected if The installed version is myIpacNG-stats (MINGS) version 0.05 exactly.
-
Locate init.php fileSearch the web server document root for the file init.php, which should be in the myIpacNG-stats or MINGS installation directory.Affected if The file init.php exists in the application directory.
-
Inspect MINGS_BASE parameter handling in init.phpOpen init.php and examine the code around the MINGS_BASE parameter usage. Look for whether MINGS_BASE is defined or assigned before it is used in include/require statements.Affected if MINGS_BASE is used in include/require statements without being explicitly defined or initialized earlier in the code.
-
Check for user-supplied input to MINGS_BASEReview init.php to determine if the MINGS_BASE parameter accepts input directly from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST superglobals without sanitization.Affected if The MINGS_BASE parameter receives unsanitized user input from HTTP request parameters.
A user is affected only if they have myIpacNG-stats version 0.05 installed with init.php present and the MINGS_BASE parameter accepts user input without prior definition.
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 dataSince the vulnerability is disputed and MINGS_BASE is defined before use, the primary mitigation is ensuring proper variable initialization. As a defensive measure, adding explicit input validation on the MINGS_BASE parameter can provide additional hardening.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-5165 — 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-2007-5165 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