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" } ] } } } }
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.