CVE-2010-2098
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 · uneditedIncomplete blacklist vulnerability in usersettings.php in e107 0.7.20 and earlier allows remote attackers to conduct SQL injection attacks via the loginname parameter.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in e107 0.7.20 and earlier in usersettings.php. The loginname parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries through an incomplete blacklist filter.
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<= 0.7.20= 0.6_10= 0.6_11= 0.6_12= 0.6_13= 0.6_14= 0.6_15= 0.6_15a= 0.7= 0.7.0= 0.7.1= 0.7.2CVSS 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.
-
Locate e107 installation and determine versionSearch for e107 files on the system. Check for version.php, e107_config.php, or the main index.php file which typically contains the version definition. You can also check the database if you have access to it.Affected if The installed version is e107 0.7.20 or earlier, or specifically 0.6_10, 0.6_11, 0.6_12, 0.6_13, 0.6_14, 0.6_15, 0.6_15a, 0.7, 0.7.0, 0.7.1, or 0.7.2.
-
Verify usersettings.php existsLocate the usersettings.php file within the e107 installation directory, typically found in the e107_handlers or main e107 directory.Affected if The file usersettings.php exists in the e107 installation.
-
Check if user registration or settings feature is enabledExamine the e107 configuration to determine if user registration or user profile settings functionality is active. This feature processes the loginname parameter.Affected if User registration or user settings functionality is enabled and accessible.
-
Inspect the loginname parameter handling in usersettings.phpOpen usersettings.php and search for code handling the loginname parameter. Look for the blacklist filter implementation that sanitizes input.Affected if The code uses an incomplete blacklist filter to sanitize the loginname parameter instead of proper parameterized queries or full input validation.
You are affected if you are running any e107 version 0.7.20 or earlier (including the listed 0.6_x and 0.7.x versions) and the usersettings.php file with user settings functionality is accessible.
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 dataUpgrade e107 to version 0.7.21 or later which contains the fix. If upgrading is not possible, implement proper input validation and parameterized queries for the loginname parameter in usersettings.php.
- 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-2010-2098 — 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-2010-2098 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