CVE-2008-5694
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 lib/jpgraph/jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php in Sandbox 1.4.1 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via unspecified vectors. NOTE: the issue, if any, may be located in Aditus JpGraph rather than Sandbox. If so, then this should not be treated as an issue in Sandbox.
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 confidenceRemote file inclusion vulnerability in lib/jpgraph/jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code. The vulnerable file improperly includes external files based on user-controlled input, a critical RFI flaw. Note: There is uncertainty whether the issue resides in Sandbox itself or in the included Aditus JpGraph library component.
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= 1.4.1CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Check Sandbox versionLocate and read the version file or header in your Sandbox installation (typically index.php, version.php, or a README file in the root directory).Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.4.1 (any version in the 1.4.x range may be affected, but 1.4.1 is explicitly listed as vulnerable).
-
Locate the vulnerable fileSearch for the file lib/jpgraph/jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php within your Sandbox installation directory structure.Affected if The file exists in your environment, indicating the JpGraph library component is present.
-
Inspect include statements in the vulnerable fileOpen jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php and examine the include or require statements for dynamic variables (such as include($_GET[...]) or include($var) where $var is not hardcoded).Affected if The file contains include/require statements that use user-supplied input (like $_GET, $_POST, or unsanitized variables) without validation.
-
Verify web accessibilityAttempt to access the file directly via HTTP (e.g., curl http://yourserver/path/to/lib/jpgraph/jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php) or check your web server configuration for this path.Affected if The file is web-accessible and responds to requests, allowing remote attackers to supply malicious input.
You are affected if you are running Sandbox 1.4.1 and the jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php file exists and is web-accessible with unsafe include statements.
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 jpgraph_errhandler.inc.php file if unused, or upgrade to a patched version of the JpGraph library and ensure all include statements use hardcoded paths rather than user-supplied input.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-5694 — 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-2008-5694 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