Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-1999-0978
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 · uneditedhtdig allows remote attackers to execute commands via filenames with shell metacharacters.
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 confidencehtdig fails to properly sanitize filenames containing shell metacharacters before passing them to system calls, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary shell commands through specially crafted filenames processed by the search indexing engine.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 2.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 ht://dig is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep htdig' on Debian systems, or 'rpm -qa | grep htdig' on Red Hat systems, or check for presence of htdig/htsearch binaries in /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin/Affected if ht://dig package is found on the system
-
Identify ht://dig versionRun 'htdig -V' or 'htsearch -V' to display the version number, or check the package version via dpkg/rpmAffected if Version matches Debian Linux 2.1 htdig package or falls within vulnerable release ranges
-
Confirm indexing configuration accepts remote inputReview htdig.conf (typically in /etc/htdig/ or /usr/local/etc/) for 'start_url' or 'common_url_dirs' directives pointing to untrusted or user-controlled sourcesAffected if ht://dig is configured to index URLs or directories controlled by untrusted users or external sources
-
Check for shell metacharacter filtering in indexerInspect htdig.conf for any 'bad_*' patterns or input validation settings that filter shell metacharacters like ; | & $ ` ( ) { } [ ] < > " ' \ ! # ~ * ?Affected if No shell metacharacter filtering is configured and the indexer processes filenames from untrusted sources
-
Audit indexing input sourcesReview the directories and URLs defined in htdig.conf under 'start_url', 'limit_url', or 'exclude_url' directives to determine if indexable content originates from untrusted locationsAffected if Indexing sources include untrusted user uploads, remote URLs, or content writable by non-privileged users
The system is affected if ht://dig is installed and configured to index content from untrusted sources without shell metacharacter filtering in place.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and proper escaping of shell metacharacters in all filename handling code paths, or use safer APIs that avoid shell invocation entirely.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0978 — 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-1999-0978 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