CVE-2006-1854 in BluePay Manager
Summary
by MITRE
** DISPUTED ** Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in BluePay Manager 2.0 and earlier allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML during a login action via the (1) Account Name and (2) Username field. NOTE: the vendor has disputed this vulnerability, saying that "it does not exist currently in the Bluepay 2.0 product," and older versions might not have been affected either. As of 20060512, CVE has not formally investigated this dispute.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/07/2024
The vulnerability described in CVE-2006-1854 represents a classic cross-site scripting weakness that could potentially allow remote attackers to execute malicious scripts within the context of a victim's browser session. This issue was reported to affect BluePay Manager version 2.0 and earlier implementations, specifically targeting the authentication mechanism where users input their credentials. The vulnerability resides in the improper sanitization of user input during the login process, creating an opportunity for attackers to inject malicious code that could be executed when the application processes these inputs.
The technical flaw manifests through two specific input fields during the login action - the Account Name and Username field - which fail to properly validate or escape user-provided data before processing. When attackers submit malicious payloads through these fields, the application does not adequately filter or encode the input, allowing HTML or JavaScript code to be stored or directly executed within the user's browser context. This type of vulnerability falls under CWE-79 which specifically addresses Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities where applications fail to properly validate or escape user-controllable data. The attack vector is particularly concerning as it targets the authentication phase, potentially enabling session hijacking, credential theft, or redirection to malicious sites.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple data corruption or display issues. An attacker could exploit this weakness to steal session cookies, redirect users to phishing sites, or inject malicious content that could compromise user accounts and potentially lead to broader system infiltration. The timing of the attack during the login process makes it particularly dangerous as it can intercept credentials or establish malicious sessions before legitimate users can access the system. This vulnerability aligns with ATT&CK technique T1566 which covers social engineering tactics, specifically focusing on credential access through web-based attacks. The potential for privilege escalation increases significantly if the compromised session allows access to administrative functions or sensitive data processing capabilities.
Despite the vendor's disputed claim that this vulnerability does not exist in BluePay 2.0, the CVE entry remains active due to the lack of formal investigation into the vendor's assertion. Organizations should consider this vulnerability as potentially exploitable in older versions of the software or in configurations where input validation may not be properly implemented. The disputed nature of this CVE highlights the importance of independent verification of security claims and the need for organizations to maintain robust input validation practices regardless of vendor statements. Security teams should implement comprehensive testing procedures to validate the presence or absence of such vulnerabilities in their systems. The lack of formal investigation by CVE underscores the complexity of validating disputed vulnerabilities and emphasizes the necessity for organizations to maintain their own security assessment protocols.
The broader implications of this vulnerability demonstrate the critical importance of input validation in web applications, particularly in authentication mechanisms where user data is processed. This case illustrates how seemingly minor oversights in data sanitization can create significant security risks, especially when targeting fundamental system functions like user authentication. Organizations should implement proper encoding, validation, and sanitization techniques for all user-controllable inputs and maintain up-to-date security practices to prevent such vulnerabilities from being exploited in real-world scenarios. The disputed status also emphasizes the importance of continuous security monitoring and validation of vendor claims, as security assessments should never rely solely on vendor assertions without independent verification.