CVE-2005-1588 in Quick.cart
Summary
by MITRE
** DISPUTED ** SQL injection vulnerability in index.php for Quick.cart 0.3.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the iCategory parameter. NOTE: the vendor has privately disputed this issue, saying that Quick.cart does not even use SQL and therefore can not be vulnerable to SQL injection.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/08/2024
The vulnerability described in CVE-2005-1588 relates to a potential SQL injection flaw in the index.php file of Quick.cart version 0.3.0. This type of vulnerability falls under the CWE-89 category, which specifically addresses SQL injection attacks where malicious SQL code can be inserted into application inputs. The issue manifests through the iCategory parameter, suggesting that this parameter is directly incorporated into SQL query construction without proper sanitization or parameterization. When a remote attacker manipulates this parameter, they could potentially execute arbitrary SQL commands on the underlying database system, which would represent a critical security breach.
The operational impact of such a vulnerability would be severe if it were legitimate, as it would allow unauthorized users to access, modify, or delete database contents. The attacker could potentially extract sensitive information, escalate privileges, or even take full control of the database server. This vulnerability would particularly affect web applications that rely on database connectivity for dynamic content generation, as the iCategory parameter likely serves to filter or retrieve specific categories of data from the database. The potential for data loss, data corruption, and unauthorized access makes this a high-risk security concern.
However, it is crucial to note that the vendor has privately disputed this vulnerability, claiming that Quick.cart does not utilize SQL at all in its operation. This vendor denial raises important questions about the validity of the reported vulnerability and suggests that either the vulnerability assessment was incorrectly applied or the software version mentioned does not accurately reflect the actual implementation. When vendors dispute CVE reports, it often indicates that either the vulnerability does not exist in the claimed version, the assessment methodology was flawed, or there may be confusion about which specific software component is being referenced. The ATT&CK framework would categorize this as a technique related to vulnerability exploitation, but the disputed nature of the report complicates the operational assessment of this particular threat.
The discrepancy between the reported vulnerability and the vendor's response highlights the importance of thorough validation in security assessments. Security researchers must ensure that their findings accurately reflect the actual software implementation, as false positives can lead to unnecessary panic and resource allocation toward non-existent threats. The vendor's denial suggests that either the vulnerability was misidentified, or the software implementation has changed significantly since the vulnerability report was submitted. Organizations should carefully evaluate such disputed CVE entries and verify the actual software behavior before implementing any mitigations. This case demonstrates the complexity of vulnerability assessment and the necessity for clear communication between security researchers and software vendors to resolve discrepancies effectively. The disputed nature of this CVE entry also serves as a reminder that not all reported vulnerabilities are valid, and proper verification processes are essential for maintaining security posture.