CVE-2023-40765
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 · uneditedUser enumeration is found in PHPJabbers Event Booking Calendar v4.0. 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 confidenceUser enumeration vulnerability in PHPJabbers Event Booking Calendar v4.0 password recovery function. The application reveals different error messages for existing versus non-existing user accounts during password reset, allowing attackers to harvest valid usernames and conduct targeted brute force attacks.
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= 4.0CVSS 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
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 installed versionCheck the software version in the application admin panel under 'Help' or 'About', or inspect the source code files for a version markerAffected if The installed version is exactly 4.0 (note: only version 4.0 is listed as affected)
-
Locate the password recovery endpointFind the 'Forgot Password' or password reset form in the login page of the applicationAffected if The password recovery function exists and is accessible
-
Test with a non-existing accountSubmit an email address or username that does not exist in the system to the password recovery form and note the exact error message or responseAffected if The application returns a specific error message indicating the account does not exist
-
Test with an existing accountSubmit a valid email address or username that is registered in the system to the password recovery form and note the exact error message or responseAffected if The application returns a different message than the non-existing account test, such as confirming the account was found or sending a reset email
-
Compare the responsesReview both error messages side by side to determine if they differ based on user existenceAffected if Different messages are returned for existing versus non-existing accounts (user enumeration is present)
If the password recovery function returns distinct error messages for valid versus invalid accounts, the environment is affected by this user enumeration vulnerability.
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 dataImplement uniform error messaging for password recovery regardless of user existence status. Return the same response (e.g., 'If an account exists with this email, a reset link has been sent') for both valid and invalid inputs.
- 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-2023-40765 — 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-2023-40765 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