CVE-1999-0339
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the libauth library in Solaris allows local users to gain additional privileges, possibly root access.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the libauth library on Solaris allows unprivileged local users to potentially escalate privileges to root by exploiting a flawed bounds check in authentication handling code.
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= 2.5= 2.5.1= 2.6all versions= 5.2= 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 Solaris or SunOS versionRun 'uname -a' or check '/etc/solaris-release' (for Solaris) or '/etc/sunos-release' (for SunOS) to determine the installed OS versionAffected if The version matches 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6 (Solaris) or any version in the 5.2-5.5.1 range (SunOS)
-
Locate the libauth librarySearch for libauth files using 'find /usr -name "*libauth*" 2>/dev/null' or check common library paths such as /usr/lib and /usr/lib/libauthAffected if The libauth library file exists on the system (the vulnerability exists in this library)
-
Verify unprivileged local user accounts existCheck for non-root users with 'ls -la /home' or 'getent passwd | grep -v root' to enumerate local user accountsAffected if There are unprivileged local user accounts present on the system (the flaw requires a local user to exploit)
-
Confirm the system is SunOS-basedRun 'uname -s' to verify the kernel is SunOS or SolarisAffected if The operating system is SunOS or Solaris (this vulnerability only affects these platforms)
A system is affected if it runs SunOS/Solaris versions 2.5 through 2.6 or SunOS 5.2-5.5.1, has the libauth library present, and permits unprivileged local user access.
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 dataApply appropriate Solaris security patches for libauth; if patches are unavailable for legacy systems, consider upgrading to a supported Solaris version or implementing least-privilege controls to limit local user access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0339 — 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-1999-0339 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