CVE-1999-0353
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 · uneditedrpc.pcnfsd in HP gives remote root access by changing the permissions on the main printer spool directory.
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 confidencerpc.pcnfsd on HP systems contains a vulnerability allowing remote attackers to gain root privileges by manipulating permissions on the printer spool directory, enabling arbitrary code execution with highest privileges.
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= 10.01= 10.10= 10.20= 11.00CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Verify HP-UX versionRun 'uname -a' or 'swlist -a revision' to confirm the installed HP-UX version matches 10.01, 10.10, 10.20, or 11.00Affected if The system runs HP-UX 10.01, 10.10, 10.20, or 11.00
-
Check if rpc.pcnfsd is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep pcnfsd' or use 'rpcinfo -p' to query the RPC service status on port 515Affected if The rpc.pcnfsd daemon is actively running on the system
-
Confirm printer spool directory existsInspect the default pcnfsd spool directory, typically /var/spool/lp or /usr/spool/lp, using 'ls -la'Affected if A printer spool directory used by pcnfsd exists on the system
-
Verify spool directory permissionsRun 'ls -ld /var/spool/lp' or the relevant spool path to check write permissions for the pcnfsd user contextAffected if The spool directory permissions allow modification by the pcnfsd service account or remote attacker
-
Check network exposure of RPC serviceReview firewall rules or run 'rpcinfo -p localhost' to confirm port 515 is listening on network interfacesAffected if rpc.pcnfsd is bound to a network-accessible interface rather than localhost only
The system is affected if it runs HP-UX 10.01/10.10/10.20/11.00 with rpc.pcnfsd running and accessible, where the printer spool directory permissions can be exploited for privilege escalation.
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 dataDisable rpc.pcnfsd if not required, apply legacy HP patches (if available), restrict network access to RPC services via firewall, or migrate to secure print spooling alternatives.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0353 — 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-1999-0353 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