CVE-2012-0939
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 · uneditedMultiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in TestLink 1.8.5b and earlier allow remote authenticated users with the Requirement view permission to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the req_spec_id parameter to (1) reqSpecAnalyse.php, (2) reqSpecPrint.php, or (3) reqSpecView.php in requirements/. NOTE: some of these details are obtained 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 · high confidenceSQL injection vulnerabilities in TestLink 1.8.5b and earlier allow authenticated users with Requirement view permission to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the req_spec_id parameter in reqSpecAnalyse.php, reqSpecPrint.php, and reqSpecView.php within the requirements/ directory.
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= 1.8.5b= 1.9.3CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/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 installed TestLink versionLocate the TestLink installation directory and check the version file (typically version.php or similar) or the about/ info page in the web interfaceAffected if Installed version is 1.8.5b or earlier, or exactly version 1.9.3
-
Locate affected PHP filesNavigate to the requirements/ directory within the TestLink installation and verify the presence of reqSpecAnalyse.php, reqSpecPrint.php, and reqSpecView.phpAffected if Any of these three files exist in the installation
-
Verify requirements module is accessibleLog into TestLink with an account that has Requirement view permission and attempt to access the requirements specification features that use the affected filesAffected if User with Requirement view permission can access the requirements functionality
-
Check for proper input validation on req_spec_idExamine the source code of the three affected files (reqSpecAnalyse.php, reqSpecPrint.php, reqSpecView.php) and look for how the req_spec_id parameter is handled - check if it is used directly in SQL queries without escaping, parameterization, or sanitizationAffected if The req_spec_id parameter is used in SQL queries without prepared statements, escaping functions, or input validation
User is affected if running TestLink version 1.8.5b or earlier, or version 1.9.3, with the requirements module accessible to users who have Requirement view permission and the three affected files contain unsanitized req_spec_id parameter usage in SQL queries.
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 to a patched TestLink version and implement parameterized queries or proper input validation/sanitization on the req_spec_id parameter across all three affected files.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0939 — 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-2012-0939 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