CVE-2007-5978
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 brokenlink.php in the mylinks module for XOOPS allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the lid 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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the mylinks module for XOOPS CMS. The brokenlink.php file fails to properly sanitize the lid parameter before using it in SQL queries, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary SQL commands.
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= 2.0.17.1CVSS 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.
-
Verify XOOPS CMS is installedCheck for the presence of XOOPS core files (e.g., mainfile.php, include/functions.php) in the web root directoryAffected if XOOPS CMS is present on the server
-
Check if mylinks module is installedLook for the mylinks module directory (commonly at modules/mylinks/) within the XOOPS installationAffected if The mylinks module directory exists in the XOOPS modules folder
-
Identify mylinks module versionCheck the module's version file (typically modules/mylinks/xoops_version.php or similar) for the version numberAffected if The installed version matches 2.0.17.1
-
Locate vulnerable brokenlink.php fileVerify the existence of modules/mylinks/brokenlink.php in the web directoryAffected if The brokenlink.php file exists in the mylinks module
-
Inspect lid parameter handling in brokenlink.phpExamine the brokenlink.php file and search for the lid parameter usage in SQL queries without proper sanitization or parameterizationAffected if The lid parameter is used directly in SQL queries without prepared statements or input validation
A user is affected if XOOPS CMS with the mylinks module version 2.0.17.1 is installed and the brokenlink.php file handles the lid parameter unsafely in SQL queries.
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 use parameterized queries (prepared statements) for the lid parameter. If the mylinks module is not essential, consider disabling or removing it until patched.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-5978 — 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-2007-5978 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