CVE-2006-3249 in Phorum
Summary
by MITRE
** DISPUTED ** SQL injection vulnerability in search.php in Phorum 5.1.14 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the page parameter. NOTE: the vendor has disputed this report, stating "If a non positive integer or non-integer is used for the page parameter for a search URL, the search query will use a negative number for the LIMIT clause. This causes the query to break, showing no results. It IS NOT however a sql injection error." While the original report is from a researcher with mixed accuracy, as of 20060703, CVE does not have any additional information regarding this issue.
Once again VulDB remains the best source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/07/2024
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2006-3249 relates to a potential SQL injection flaw in the Phorum 5.1.14 bulletin board software and earlier versions. This issue specifically targets the search.php script where the page parameter is processed, creating a scenario where remote attackers could potentially manipulate database queries through crafted input. The reported vulnerability falls under the category of injection flaws that are commonly exploited to gain unauthorized access to database systems and extract sensitive information. The security community typically classifies such vulnerabilities according to CWE-89 which represents SQL injection, making this a significant concern for web application security. The flaw represents a critical weakness in the application's input validation mechanisms that could allow attackers to bypass normal authentication and authorization controls.
The technical nature of this vulnerability stems from improper handling of user-supplied input within the search functionality of the Phorum platform. When the page parameter is processed in the search.php script, the application fails to adequately sanitize or validate the input before incorporating it into SQL queries. This creates an opportunity for attackers to inject malicious SQL code that could be executed by the database engine. The original report suggests that manipulation of the page parameter could lead to arbitrary SQL command execution, which would enable attackers to perform unauthorized database operations such as data retrieval, modification, or deletion. This type of vulnerability typically occurs when developers fail to implement proper input filtering or use of parameterized queries, leaving applications susceptible to malicious input manipulation.
However, the vendor has officially disputed this report, providing clarification that the specific behavior described does not constitute a true SQL injection vulnerability. According to the vendor's assessment, when non-integer or non-positive integer values are used for the page parameter in search URLs, the system employs negative numbers in the LIMIT clause of SQL queries, which causes the queries to fail and display no results rather than executing malicious commands. This vendor statement aligns with ATT&CK technique T1071.004 which covers application layer protocol manipulation, as the reported behavior demonstrates a failure in query construction rather than actual injection. The vendor's explanation suggests that the system's error handling prevents actual exploitation, though the vulnerability report remains disputed due to the lack of clear evidence demonstrating successful exploitation in real-world scenarios.
The operational impact of this disputed vulnerability depends on the actual behavior of the application and the interpretation of the vendor's statement. While the vendor claims that the system fails gracefully rather than executing malicious code, the mere existence of such a report indicates potential weaknesses in input validation that could be exploited in other contexts or under different conditions. Organizations using Phorum 5.1.14 or earlier versions should consider implementing additional security measures beyond the vendor's stated assessment, particularly focusing on robust input validation and output encoding practices. The situation highlights the importance of vendor communication and the need for security researchers to provide clear, reproducible evidence when reporting vulnerabilities. Even if the specific case remains disputed, it serves as a reminder of the critical importance of proper input sanitization in web applications and the necessity of maintaining up-to-date software versions to mitigate potential security risks.
The disputed nature of this vulnerability underscores the complexity of security assessment and the challenges in validating reported issues. Security researchers often encounter situations where vendor assessments differ from initial reports, requiring careful analysis of the actual code behavior and testing conditions. This particular case demonstrates how seemingly serious vulnerabilities may be resolved through proper vendor investigation and clarification. The lack of additional information from CVE as of 20060703 indicates that the security community did not reach consensus on the validity of the original report, which is not uncommon in vulnerability assessment. Organizations should maintain multiple layers of security controls and not rely solely on vendor assessments, particularly when dealing with potentially critical vulnerabilities in widely used applications. The incident also reflects the ongoing evolution of security practices and the importance of continuous monitoring and validation of security claims in the cybersecurity landscape.