CVE-1999-0590
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 · uneditedA system does not present an appropriate legal message or warning to a user who is accessing it.
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 confidenceThis CVE addresses the absence of required legal warning banners or notice messages on systems. When users connect to a system, it should display a warning banner stating the system is for authorized use only, that usage may be monitored, and that unauthorized access is prohibited. Without this banner, organizations lack documented evidence that users have been notified of acceptable use policies and monitoring practices.
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= 2.6.20.1all versionsall versionsall versionsall versions= 3.5.1= 4.0CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/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.
-
Check for warning banner configuration on Linux systemsExamine system login configuration files (sshd_config, PAM configuration, display manager settings) and check for Banner or legal notice directives. Look for files typically containing legal notice text in /etc or /etc/ssh/ directories, or verify if sshd Banner directive is configured.Affected if No legal warning banner is configured in login configuration files or no banner text is set to display before authentication.
-
Verify presence of login warning banner on macOSCheck if a legal banner is configured to display at the login window. This can be inspected through system preferences or by attempting a remote login (via SSH) to observe if a banner appears before authentication.Affected if No legal warning banner is displayed before or at the macOS login prompt.
-
Inspect Windows system for legal notice configurationCheck Windows registry or system policy settings for legal notice configuration. On Windows NT/2000/95/98, examine registry keys under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System for 'LegalNoticeCaption' and 'LegalNoticeText' values, or check local security policy settings.Affected if No legal notice caption or text is configured in Windows registry or security policies, meaning no warning banner appears at logon.
-
Test banner display via remote access attemptInitiate an SSH, telnet, or remote desktop connection to the target system and observe whether a warning banner displaying authorized use, monitoring disclosure, and prohibition of unauthorized access appears before the login prompt.Affected if No warning banner containing authorized use and monitoring notices appears during the login sequence.
The system is affected by this CVE if no legal warning banner is configured or displayed at login, meaning users are not notified of authorized use policies and monitoring practices before authentication.
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.
dbcve · scopedDeploy appropriate legal notice and warning banners to all affected systems that display before or at the login prompt, ensuring they cover authorized use, monitoring disclosure, and consent to terms.
- This CVE describes a missing legal warning banner issue (compliance finding), not a technical security vulnerability exploitable through patching
- The affected operating systems (Windows 95/98/NT/2000, Linux 2.6.20.1, legacy macOS) are all end-of-life and no longer receive security updates
- Modern operating systems provide configuration options to display legal notices/banners at login if required by organizational policy
- No upgrade path is applicable as this is not a patchable vulnerability - it is a configuration/compliance requirement that applies to legacy systems no longer in use
- For compliance with similar requirements on current systems, configure the login banner via system settings or policy (e.g., /etc/issue on Linux, Group Policy on Windows, loginwindow preferences on macOS)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-1999-0590 — 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-1999-0590 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