CutenewsApplication · Cutephp

CVE-2007-6662

MEDIUM · 5.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2008-01-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
67/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Directory traversal vulnerability in file.php in CuteNews 2.6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the file parameter, as demonstrated by reading the admin username and password hash in data/users.db.php.

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 confidence

Directory traversal vulnerability in CuteNews 2.6's file.php allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files by using `../` sequences in the file parameter. The vulnerability enables reading sensitive files like the users database containing admin credentials.

MitigationImplement strict input validation on the file parameter to reject path traversal sequences (`../`). Consider upgrading to a patched version or migrating away from this legacy software if no security updates are available.

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
CutenewsApplication
Affected:= 2.6

CVSS 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
None

AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate the CuteNews installation
    Search for file.php in your web root directories that is part of a CuteNews installation. Common paths may include /cutenews/, /news/, or similar. Verify the presence of Cutenews by checking for characteristic files like index.php, show_news.php, or a /inc/ directory.
    Affected if file.php from CuteNews 2.6 is present on the server
  2. Confirm the CuteNews version
    Check for version indicators within the CuteNews installation. Look for a version.php file, a VERSION file in the root directory, or check the header/comment sections of core PHP files for a version string. Compare the discovered version to 2.6.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.6
  3. Verify file.php is accessible via web
    Confirm that file.php is accessible over HTTP/HTTPS. Try accessing the file directly through your web browser: http(s)://yourdomain/path/to/cutenews/file.php
    Affected if file.php returns a valid HTTP response (not 404)
  4. Inspect input validation in file.php
    Open file.php and examine the code handling the 'file' parameter. Look for any input validation, sanitization, or filtering logic that should reject path traversal sequences like '../' or '..\'. Search for code that processes the file parameter before using it in file operations.
    Affected if file.php lacks input validation on the 'file' parameter, or validation can be bypassed, allowing ../ sequences to pass through

You are affected if CuteNews 2.6 is installed, file.php is web-accessible, and the file parameter lacks proper validation to block directory traversal sequences.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation on the file parameter to reject path traversal sequences (`../`). Consider upgrading to a patched version or migrating away from this legacy software if no security updates are available.

Fix this in Cutenews Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6662 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-6662 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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