CVE-2008-1214
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 · uneditedMRcgi/MRProcessIncomingForms.pl in Numara FootPrints 8.1 on Linux allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in the PROJECTNUM parameter. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in Numara FootPrints 8.1's MRcgi/MRProcessIncomingForms.pl CGI script. The PROJECTNUM parameter fails to sanitize shell metacharacters, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands by crafting malicious input.
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= 8.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify Numara FootPrints versionLocate and inspect the FootPrints installation directory, check version files, or query the application through its web interface or documentation to confirm version 8.1 is installed.Affected if The installed version is Numara FootPrints 8.1 exactly.
-
Locate the MRProcessIncomingForms.pl CGI scriptSearch the web server document root or CGI directories for the file MRcgi/MRProcessIncomingForms.pl - this is typically found in /cgi-bin/ or a custom CGI directory under the FootPrints web path.Affected if The file MRProcessIncomingForms.pl exists in the MRcgi subdirectory of the FootPrints web installation.
-
Confirm web accessibility of the CGI scriptAttempt to access the script via HTTP (e.g., GET request to the web server's CGI-bin/MRcgi/MRProcessIncomingForms.pl) to verify it is executable and web-facing.Affected if The CGI script responds to HTTP requests and is executable by the web server.
-
Inspect PROJECTNUM parameter handlingReview the source code of MRProcessIncomingForms.pl to verify whether the PROJECTNUM parameter accepts user input without sanitizing shell metacharacters such as |, ;, &, $, `, or command substitution operators.Affected if The script processes the PROJECTNUM parameter without filtering or escaping shell metacharacters.
A system is affected if Numara FootPrints version 8.1 is installed, the MRProcessIncomingForms.pl CGI script is web-accessible, and the PROJECTNUM parameter accepts unsanitized user input.
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 strict input validation on all user-supplied parameters, specifically sanitizing or rejecting shell metacharacters (|, ;, &, $, `, etc.) in the PROJECTNUM parameter. If available, apply vendor patches or consider upgrading to a supported version of the software.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-1214 — 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-2008-1214 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