CVE-2017-16893
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 · uneditedThe application Piwigo is affected by an SQL injection vulnerability in version 2.9.2 and possibly prior. This vulnerability allows remote authenticated attackers to obtain information in the context of the user used by the application to retrieve data from the database. tags.php is affected: values of the edit_list parameters are not sanitized; these are used to construct an SQL query and retrieve a list of registered users into the application.
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 Piwigo's tags.php file where the edit_list parameter is not sanitized before being used in SQL query construction, allowing authenticated attackers to inject malicious SQL code and extract database information.
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<= 2.9.2CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 Piwigo installation and versionCheck the version.php file in the Piwigo root directory (e.g., /include/version.php) or look at the Piwigo admin dashboard under "Help > About" to find the installed version number.Affected if The installed version is 2.9.2 or lower.
-
Verify tags.php file existsLocate the tags.php file in the Piwigo web root directory (typically at /tags.php). Confirm the file is present and accessible via the web server.Affected if The tags.php file exists in the web-accessible directory.
-
Confirm tag editing functionality is accessibleLog into Piwigo as any authenticated user and navigate to the Tags management section (usually via "Manage > Tags" or by accessing tags.php directly). Check if the edit_list parameter is accepted.Affected if Authenticated users can access tags.php and the edit_list parameter is processed without sanitization.
-
Check if database error reporting is enabledExamine the Piwigo configuration file (config.php) for debug settings or check if the web server displays SQL errors in responses when malformed input is provided to the edit_list parameter.Affected if SQL errors or database information is visible in application responses.
A user is affected if they are running Piwigo version 2.9.2 or lower, have the tags.php file accessible, and are using an authenticated account that can access the tag editing functionality.
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 version of Piwigo; implement parameterized queries or proper input sanitization for the edit_list parameter in tags.php.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-16893 — 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-2017-16893 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