dbcve.org
Luxcal Web CalendarApplication · Luxsoft

CVE-2023-39939

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2023-08-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.2.3m / 5.2.3l or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
SQL injection vulnerability in LuxCal Web Calendar prior to 5.2.3M (MySQL version) and LuxCal Web Calendar prior to 5.2.3L (SQLite version) allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary queries against the database and obtain or alter the information in it.

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

SQL injection vulnerability in LuxCal Web Calendar allows remote unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary SQL queries against the database, potentially exfiltrating or modifying sensitive data. The vulnerability exists in versions prior to 5.2.3M (MySQL) and 5.2.3L (SQLite).

MitigationUpgrade LuxCal Web Calendar to version 5.2.3M (MySQL) or 5.2.3L (SQLite) or later to remediate this vulnerability.

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
Luxcal Web CalendarApplication
Affected:< 5.2.3m< 5.2.3l

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
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. Locate the LuxCal Web Calendar installation
    Identify the web root directory where LuxCal is installed. Check for files such as 'header.php', 'config.php', or a 'version' file that may contain version information.
    Affected if The installed version is found to be earlier than 5.2.3M (for MySQL) or earlier than 5.2.3L (for SQLite).
  2. Determine the LuxCal version
    Open the version file or inspect the header/config file to read the installed version number. Compare it against the affected ranges: < 5.2.3M or < 5.2.3L.
    Affected if The version number displayed is below 5.2.3M or below 5.2.3L.
  3. Identify the database backend
    Examine the LuxCal configuration file (typically config.php or similar) to determine whether MySQL or SQLite is in use. Look for database connection parameters or file paths.
    Affected if The calendar uses MySQL with version below 5.2.3M, or SQLite with version below 5.2.3L.
  4. Confirm remote access exposure
    Verify that the LuxCal web interface is accessible from untrusted networks. Check network exposure settings or firewall rules that allow HTTP/HTTPS access to the calendar URL.
    Affected if The LuxCal application is accessible from remote/untrusted networks without authentication protections.

A user is affected if their LuxCal Web Calendar installation is accessible remotely and the installed version is below 5.2.3M (MySQL) or below 5.2.3L (SQLite).

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.2.3m / 5.2.3l or later
Fixed in 5.2.3m5.2.3l
Interim mitigation

Upgrade LuxCal Web Calendar to version 5.2.3M (MySQL) or 5.2.3L (SQLite) or later to remediate this vulnerability.

Recommended fix High confidence

5.2.3M (MySQL version) or 5.2.3L (SQLite version)

  1. 1. Identify which database backend your LuxCal Web Calendar installation uses (MySQL or SQLite)
  2. 2. Download the appropriate fixed version: 5.2.3M for MySQL or 5.2.3L for SQLite from the official LuxSoft website (www.luxsoft.eu)
  3. 3. Backup your existing LuxCal installation including the database
  4. 4. Replace the existing LuxCal files with the new version files
  5. 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by accessing the calendar interface
  6. 6. Confirm the SQL injection vulnerability is resolved by verifying the application functions normally

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Luxcal Web Calendar Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,560
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-39939 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2023-39939 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