Class Scheduling SystemApplication · Phpjabbers

CVE-2023-36135

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2023-08-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
User enumeration is found in in PHPJabbers Class Scheduling System v1.0. This issue occurs during password recovery, where a difference in messages could allow an attacker to determine if the user is valid or not, enabling a brute force attack with valid users.

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 confidence

User enumeration vulnerability in PHPJabbers Class Scheduling System v1.0 password recovery function. The application returns different error messages for valid versus invalid usernames, allowing attackers to identify valid user accounts and subsequently launch targeted brute force attacks.

MitigationImplement generic, identical error messages for both valid and invalid usernames during password recovery. Additionally, implement rate limiting and account lockout mechanisms to mitigate automated enumeration attempts.

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
Class Scheduling SystemApplication
Affected:= 1.0

CVSS 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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm PHPJabbers Class Scheduling System installation
    Identify if PHPJabbers Class Scheduling System v1.0 is deployed in your environment by checking the application or source files for version identification
    Affected if The application is running PHPJabbers Class Scheduling System version 1.0
  2. Locate the password recovery endpoint
    Navigate to the password recovery or forgot password page in the web application and identify the form submission URL
    Affected if The password recovery functionality is accessible and enabled
  3. Test error message response for invalid username
    Submit a clearly non-existent username (e.g., 'nonexistentuser123xyz') into the password recovery form and record the exact error message returned by the application
    Affected if An error message is displayed for the invalid username
  4. Test error message response for valid username
    Submit a known valid username (such as 'admin' or another default account) into the password recovery form and record the exact error message returned
    Affected if An error message is displayed for the valid username
  5. Compare error message responses
    Compare the error messages received from both tests - check for differences in wording, timing, or any distinguishing characteristics that indicate different application behavior based on username validity
    Affected if Different error messages are returned for valid versus invalid usernames

Your environment is affected if the password recovery function returns distinct error messages that allow an attacker to distinguish between valid and invalid usernames.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement generic, identical error messages for both valid and invalid usernames during password recovery. Additionally, implement rate limiting and account lockout mechanisms to mitigate automated enumeration attempts.

Fix this in Class Scheduling System Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-36135 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-36135 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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