CVE-2007-4453 in vBulletin
Summary
by MITRE
** DISPUTED ** Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in vBulletin 3.6.8 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web code or HTML via the (1) s parameter to index.php, and the (2) q parameter to (a) faq.php, (b) member.php, (c) memberlist.php, (d) calendar.php, (e) search.php, (f) forumdisplay.php, (g) showgroups.php, (h) online.php, and (i) sendmessage.php. NOTE: these issues have been disputed by the vendor, stating "I can t reproduce a single one of these". The researcher is known to be unreliable.
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-2007-4453 represents a disputed cross-site scripting vulnerability within vBulletin 3.6.8, a widely used bulletin board system that was prevalent in web applications during the mid-2000s. This particular vulnerability was categorized as a security flaw that could potentially allow remote attackers to execute malicious code within the context of a victim's browser session. The vulnerability was reported to affect multiple parameters across various script files within the vBulletin framework, specifically targeting the s parameter in index.php and the q parameter in numerous other PHP files including faq.php, member.php, memberlist.php, calendar.php, search.php, forumdisplay.php, showgroups.php, online.php, and sendmessage.php. The nature of this vulnerability places it squarely within the scope of CWE-79, which defines Cross-Site Scripting as a weakness that occurs when an application includes untrusted data in a new web page without proper validation or escaping, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts that execute in the context of other users' browsers. The technical implications of such a flaw are significant as it could enable attackers to steal session cookies, perform unauthorized actions on behalf of users, or redirect victims to malicious websites.
The operational impact of this vulnerability would have been substantial for organizations relying on vBulletin 3.6.8 for their community forums and user engagement platforms. When exploited, these XSS vulnerabilities could have allowed attackers to manipulate the content displayed to users, potentially leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or the distribution of malware through malicious script injection. The fact that multiple parameters across different PHP scripts were affected suggests a systemic flaw in the input validation and output encoding mechanisms within the vBulletin application. This would have created a broad attack surface where even a single unpatched instance could compromise the security of an entire user community. The vulnerability's designation as disputed by the vendor, with the vendor stating they could not reproduce any of the reported issues, creates uncertainty regarding the actual exploitability and severity of the vulnerability. This situation reflects common challenges in vulnerability assessment where researcher claims may not always be reproducible due to environmental factors, configuration differences, or the complexity of the exploitation conditions required.
The disputed nature of this CVE entry highlights the importance of thorough validation and verification processes in vulnerability management. Organizations should not rely solely on reported vulnerabilities without independent verification, particularly when vendors dispute the existence or exploitability of reported flaws. The researcher's reliability being questioned further emphasizes the need for multiple sources of validation and the importance of understanding the context and methodology behind vulnerability disclosures. From an ATT&CK framework perspective, this vulnerability would map to techniques involving client-side code injection and session management compromise, potentially enabling techniques such as credential access through session hijacking or initial access through malicious content delivery. The vendor's response, while dismissing the vulnerability, also demonstrates the ongoing challenge in security research where the gap between researcher claims and vendor verification can create confusion in the security community. Organizations should maintain robust security practices including regular updates, input validation, and output encoding regardless of CVE disputes, as the potential for exploitation in real-world environments cannot always be definitively determined through isolated testing scenarios. The incident also underscores the importance of maintaining current security patches and the risks associated with running outdated software versions that may contain known vulnerabilities.