CVE-2009-0766
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in default.php in Kipper 2.01 allows remote attackers to include and execute arbitrary local files via directory traversal sequences in the configfile 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 confidenceLocal file inclusion vulnerability in Kipper 2.01's default.php allows remote attackers to manipulate the configfile parameter with directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../) to include and execute arbitrary local files from the server's filesystem.
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= 2.01CVSS 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 Kipper installation and versionSearch the web root directory for the Kipper application files. Look for version identifiers in source files, README files, or meta information. Common locations include /kipper/, /kipper-2.01/, or the root web directory.Affected if Kipper version 2.01 is installed and accessible via web server
-
Locate default.php in the applicationVerify the presence of default.php in the Kipper installation directory, typically within the web-accessible path.Affected if default.php exists in the Kipper installation
-
Verify configfile parameter handlingInspect default.php source code to confirm it accepts a configfile parameter. Search for code patterns like $_GET['configfile'] or $_REQUEST['configfile'] being used in include/require statements.Affected if default.php processes a configfile parameter without proper validation
-
Test for directory traversal vulnerabilitySend an HTTP request to default.php with a configfile parameter containing directory traversal sequences (e.g., configfile=../../../../etc/passwd) and observe if file contents are returned.Affected if The application returns contents of files outside the intended directory when traversal sequences are provided
-
Confirm web accessibilityDetermine if the Kipper installation is exposed via HTTP/HTTPS and accessible to network clients.Affected if The vulnerable default.php is reachable over the network without authentication
A user is affected if they run Kipper version 2.01 with default.php accessible via web and the configfile parameter accepts directory traversal sequences without sanitization.
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 the configfile parameter - sanitize directory traversal sequences and use allowlist validation; apply realpath() to resolve and verify the final path is within an expected directory before inclusion.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0766 — 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-2009-0766 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