CVE-1999-0966
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 Solaris getopt in libc allows local users to gain root privileges via a long argv[0].
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 in the getopt() function in Solaris libc allows local users to escalate privileges to root by providing an overly long argv[0] string. The vulnerability exists in a standard library function used for command-line argument parsing.
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= 5.5CVSS 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/SunOS versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the exact OS versionAffected if The system is SunOS/Solaris 5.5 (also known as Solaris 2.5)
-
Check the libc versionRun 'ldd -v /bin/sh' or check the libc shared library file directly with 'ls -la /lib/libc.so*'Affected if The libc library is the unpatched version from Solaris 5.5 that contains the vulnerable getopt() function
-
Identify setuid programs that use getoptRun 'find / -perm -4000 -o -perm -2000' 2>/dev/null to list setuid/setgid programs, then check their binary dependencies with 'pmap' or 'ldd' to see if they link against the vulnerable libcAffected if A setuid/setgid program is linked against the vulnerable Solaris 5.5 libc and uses getopt() for argument parsing
-
Verify getopt usage in privileged programsExamine source code or use 'strings' on suspected setuid programs to look for getopt() function callsAffected if A setuid root program invokes getopt() and could be exploited through an overly long argv[0] argument
You are affected if your system is running SunOS/Solaris 5.5 (or an unpatched derivative) and has setuid programs that utilize the vulnerable getopt() function from the standard C library.
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 vendor patches for Solaris systems; given this is a 1999 vulnerability, all supported Solaris versions should have this issue addressed. Consider upgrading legacy Solaris systems to supported versions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0966 — 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-1999-0966 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