CVE-1999-0189
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSolaris rpcbind listens on a high numbered UDP port, which may not be filtered since the standard port number is 111.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceOn Solaris systems, rpcbind can bind to high-numbered UDP ports beyond the standard port 111. Since firewalls often only filter port 111, this allows rpcbind traffic to bypass network filters, potentially enabling attackers to reach the service and conduct RPC-based attacks.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.4= 2.5= 2.5.1= 5.3= 5.4= 5.5= 5.5.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or check /etc/release to determine if the system is Sun Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1 or SunOS 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1Affected if The OS version matches one of the affected versions listed in the CVE (Solaris 2.4-2.5.1 or SunOS 5.3-5.5.1)
-
Verify rpcbind is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep rpcbind' or 'rpcinfo -p' to check if the rpcbind service is active on the systemAffected if rpcbind is running and actively listening for RPC requests
-
Check UDP ports rpcbind is listening onRun 'rpcinfo -p' or 'netstat -uan' to list all UDP ports where rpcbind has bound. Look for ports other than the standard port 111Affected if rpcbind is bound to UDP ports beyond port 111, indicating the vulnerability is present
-
Review firewall rules for UDP port coverageCheck the host-based or network firewall configuration (e.g., 'ipf -V', 'pfctl -sr', or consult network device rules) to determine which UDP ports are allowed or blocked inboundAffected if The firewall only filters port 111 but leaves other UDP ports open, allowing rpcbind traffic to bypass the filter
A system is affected if it runs one of the listed Solaris/SunOS versions, has rpcbind running and bound to UDP ports beyond 111, and has firewall rules that do not block those additional ports.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataConfigure firewalls to block all inbound UDP ports or disable rpcbind if RPC services are not required. Alternatively, use IPsec to restrict which hosts can communicate with rpcbind.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0189 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-1999-0189 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data