gsd-2003-0249
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:22
Details
** DISPUTED ** PHP treats unknown methods such as "PoSt" as a GET request, which could allow attackers to intended access restrictions if PHP is running on a server that passes on all methods, such as Apache httpd 2.0, as demonstrated using a Limit directive. NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the Apache security team, saying "It is by design that PHP allows scripts to process any request method. A script which does not explicitly verify the request method will hence be processed as normal for arbitrary methods. It is therefore expected behaviour that one cannot implement per-method access control using the Apache configuration alone, which is the assumption made in this report."
Aliases
Aliases



{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2003-0249",
    "description": "** DISPUTED **  PHP treats unknown methods such as \"PoSt\" as a GET request, which could allow attackers to intended access restrictions if PHP is running on a server that passes on all methods, such as Apache httpd 2.0, as demonstrated using a Limit directive.  NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the Apache security team, saying \"It is by design that PHP allows scripts to process any request method.  A script which does not explicitly verify the request method will hence be processed as normal for arbitrary methods.  It is therefore expected behaviour that one cannot implement per-method access control using the Apache configuration alone, which is the assumption made in this report.\"",
    "id": "GSD-2003-0249"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2003-0249"
      ],
      "details": "** DISPUTED **  PHP treats unknown methods such as \"PoSt\" as a GET request, which could allow attackers to intended access restrictions if PHP is running on a server that passes on all methods, such as Apache httpd 2.0, as demonstrated using a Limit directive.  NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the Apache security team, saying \"It is by design that PHP allows scripts to process any request method.  A script which does not explicitly verify the request method will hence be processed as normal for arbitrary methods.  It is therefore expected behaviour that one cannot implement per-method access control using the Apache configuration alone, which is the assumption made in this report.\"",
      "id": "GSD-2003-0249",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:22:13.115011Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
        "ID": "CVE-2003-0249",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "n/a",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "n/a"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "** DISPUTED **  PHP treats unknown methods such as \"PoSt\" as a GET request, which could allow attackers to intended access restrictions if PHP is running on a server that passes on all methods, such as Apache httpd 2.0, as demonstrated using a Limit directive.  NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the Apache security team, saying \"It is by design that PHP allows scripts to process any request method.  A script which does not explicitly verify the request method will hence be processed as normal for arbitrary methods.  It is therefore expected behaviour that one cannot implement per-method access control using the Apache configuration alone, which is the assumption made in this report.\""
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "20030625 PHP/Apache .htaccess Authentication Bypass Vulnerability",
            "refsource": "IDEFENSE",
            "url": "http://www.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilities/display.php?id=97"
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "cve": {
        "configurations": [
          {
            "nodes": [
              {
                "cpeMatch": [
                  {
                    "criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:php:php:4.4.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                    "matchCriteriaId": "84B70263-37AA-4539-A286-12038A3792C6",
                    "vulnerable": true
                  }
                ],
                "negate": false,
                "operator": "OR"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "descriptions": [
          {
            "lang": "en",
            "value": "PHP treats unknown methods such as \"PoSt\" as a GET request, which could allow attackers to intended access restrictions if PHP is running on a server that passes on all methods, such as Apache httpd 2.0, as demonstrated using a Limit directive.  NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the Apache security team, saying \"It is by design that PHP allows scripts to process any request method.  A script which does not explicitly verify the request method will hence be processed as normal for arbitrary methods.  It is therefore expected behaviour that one cannot implement per-method access control using the Apache configuration alone, which is the assumption made in this report."
          }
        ],
        "id": "CVE-2003-0249",
        "lastModified": "2024-04-11T00:37:41.330",
        "metrics": {
          "cvssMetricV2": [
            {
              "acInsufInfo": false,
              "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
              "cvssData": {
                "accessComplexity": "LOW",
                "accessVector": "NETWORK",
                "authentication": "NONE",
                "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
                "baseScore": 7.5,
                "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL",
                "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
                "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P",
                "version": "2.0"
              },
              "exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
              "impactScore": 6.4,
              "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
              "obtainOtherPrivilege": true,
              "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
              "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
              "type": "Primary",
              "userInteractionRequired": false
            }
          ]
        },
        "published": "2003-12-31T05:00:00.000",
        "references": [
          {
            "source": "cve@mitre.org",
            "tags": [
              "Vendor Advisory"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.idefense.com/intelligence/vulnerabilities/display.php?id=97"
          }
        ],
        "sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
        "vulnStatus": "Modified",
        "weaknesses": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "en",
                "value": "NVD-CWE-Other"
              }
            ],
            "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
            "type": "Primary"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading...

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.