ghsa-rpm4-2vv9-4p54
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-14 02:56
Modified
2022-05-14 02:56
Details
SugarCRM before 6.1.3 does not properly handle reloads and direct requests for a warning page produced by a certain duplicate check, which allows remote authenticated users to discover (1) the names of customers via a ShowDuplicates action to the Accounts module, reachable through index.php; or (2) the names of contact persons via a ShowDuplicates action to the Contacts module, reachable through index.php.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2011-0745" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-20" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2011-03-16T22:55:00Z", "severity": "MODERATE" }, "details": "SugarCRM before 6.1.3 does not properly handle reloads and direct requests for a warning page produced by a certain duplicate check, which allows remote authenticated users to discover (1) the names of customers via a ShowDuplicates action to the Accounts module, reachable through index.php; or (2) the names of contact persons via a ShowDuplicates action to the Contacts module, reachable through index.php.", "id": "GHSA-rpm4-2vv9-4p54", "modified": "2022-05-14T02:56:20Z", "published": "2022-05-14T02:56:20Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-0745" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/66110" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/8141" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.redteam-pentesting.de/advisories/rt-sa-2011-002" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/517027/100/0/threaded" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/46885" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id?1025222" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2011/0675" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [] }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.