DataApplication · Drupal
CVE-2011-2714
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 · uneditedA Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability exists in Drupal 6.20 with Data 6.x-1.0-alpha14 due to insufficient sanitization of table descriptions, field names, or labels before display.
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 confidenceCross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Drupal 6.20 with Data module 6.x-1.0-alpha14. The module fails to properly sanitize table descriptions, field names, or labels before rendering them in web pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts via these input vectors.
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
DataApplication
= 6.x-1.0
DrupalCMS
= 6.20CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 the Drupal core versionCheck the version in includes/version.inc or query the 'system' database table where name='drupal'Affected if Running Drupal 6.20 exactly (exact version match required)
-
Identify the Data module versionCheck sites/all/modules/data/data.info file or query the 'system' table where name='data'Affected if Running Data module 6.x-1.0-alpha14 or any 6.x-1.0 release (6.x-1.0 branch)
-
Confirm the Data module is enabledQuery the 'system' table where name='data' and check the 'status' column equals 1Affected if The Data module status is 1 (enabled) in the system table
-
Check for Data module tables in the databaseQuery the database for tables named with 'data_' prefix, such as data_table or similar metadata tables created by the moduleAffected if Data module tables exist, indicating the module is in use
-
Inspect stored table descriptions, field names, or labelsExamine the content in the Data module's metadata storage (e.g., data_table table) for any table descriptions, field names, or labels that may contain unescaped HTML charactersAffected if Any table descriptions, field names, or labels contain raw HTML or script tags without proper sanitization
You are affected if you are running Drupal 6.20 with the Data module 6.x-1.0-alpha14 (or any 6.x-1.0 version) enabled and the module contains any user-supplied table metadata that was not processed through Drupal's sanitization functions.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of the Data module that implements proper output encoding using Drupal's sanitization functions (e.g., check_plain(), filter_xss()) for all user-supplied table metadata before display.
Fix this in Data
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2011-2714 — 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-2011-2714 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