DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1915. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1915. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1915 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1921. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1921. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1921 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1855. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1855. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1855 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1250. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1250. Notes: this duplicate occurred as a result of multiple independent discoveries and insufficient coordination by the vendor and CNA. All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1250 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1841. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1841. Notes: this duplicate occurred as a result of separate assignments by multiple CNAs, one to the researcher and one to the vendor. All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1841 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2005. Notes: none

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1250. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1250. Notes: this duplicate occurred as a result of multiple independent discoveries and insufficient coordination by the vendor and CNA. All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1250 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-0174. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-0174. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-0174 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-0175. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-0175. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-0175 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1579. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1579. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1579 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1766. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-1766. Notes: This duplicate occurred due to insufficient coordination across three separate parties. All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1766 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-1343. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2005-1343. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-1343 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2005-0941. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2005-0941. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2005-0941 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage

cart.php in LiteCommerce might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via invalid (1) category_id or (2) product_id parameters. NOTE: this issue was originally claimed to be due to SQL injection, but the original researcher is known to be frequently inaccurate with respect to bug type and severity. The vendor has disputed this issue, saying "These reports are credited to malicious person we refused to hire. We have not taken legal action against him only because he is located in India. The vulnerabilites reported can not be reproduced, hence information you provide is contrary to fact." Further investigation by CVE personnel shows that an invalid SQL syntax error could be generated, but it only reveals portions of underlying database structure, which is already available in documentation from the vendor, and it does not appear to lead to path disclosure. Therefore, this issue is not a vulnerability or an exposure, and it probably should be REJECTED