CVE-1999-0819
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 · uneditedNTMail does not disable the VRFY command, even if the administrator has explicitly disabled 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 confidenceNTMail is a Windows NT mail server that fails to properly disable the SMTP VRFY command, even when the administrator has explicitly configured it to be disabled. The VRFY command allows remote attackers to verify whether specific usernames exist on the mail system, enabling user enumeration for further 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 dataall versions= 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm NTMail installationSearch for NTMail directories (common paths: C:\Program Files\NTMail or C:\NTMail) or check for NTMail service entries in Windows Services. Also check Add/Remove Programs for NTMail entry.Affected if NTMail is installed on Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000
-
Verify NTMail versionLocate the NTMail executable (ntmail.exe) in the installation directory, right-click and select Properties, or run 'ntmail.exe -v' from command line if supported, to obtain the version number.Affected if Version matches Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 builds of NTMail (any version)
-
Confirm SMTP service is activeOpen Services console (services.msc) and check if NTMail SMTP service is running, or run 'net start' command and look for NTMail SMTP entry.Affected if SMTP service is running and accepting connections on port 25
-
Test VRFY command responseConnect to the server on port 25 (telnet server 25 or using netcat), then type 'VRFY test' and press Enter. Observe whether the server responds with code 250 (verified) or 550 (not verified) instead of code 502 (command not implemented).Affected if VRFY command returns a username existence response (250 or 550) rather than rejecting the command entirely (502)
-
Check VRFY configuration settingLocate NTMail configuration file (typically ntmail.ini or smtp.ini in the NTMail directory), look for VRFY or VERIFY setting under [SMTP] section, and note whether it is set to disabled or 0.Affected if Configuration shows VRFY is set to disabled but the command still responds (indicating the vulnerability is present)
A user is affected if NTMail is installed on Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000, the SMTP service is running, and the VRFY command returns valid responses (250/550) regardless of configuration settings.
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 the VRFY command at the SMTP server level through NTMail configuration if supported, or migrate to a modern mail server that properly handles SMTP command restrictions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0819 — 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-1999-0819 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