CVE-1999-1075
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 · uneditedinetd in AIX 4.1.5 dynamically assigns a port N when starting ttdbserver (ToolTalk server), but also inadvertently listens on port N-1 without passing control to ttdbserver, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a large number of connections to port N-1, which are not properly closed by inetd.
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 · high confidenceIn AIX 4.1.5, the inetd super-server dynamically assigns a port N when launching the ttdbserver (ToolTalk server), but mistakenly binds to port N-1 without properly handing control to ttdbserver. Remote attackers can exploit this by sending many connections to port N-1, which inetd fails to manage correctly, causing resource exhaustion and denial of service.
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= 4.1.5CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 AIX version is 4.1.5Run 'oslevel' or 'uname -a' to confirm the exact AIX versionAffected if The system is running AIX 4.1.5 specifically (other versions are not affected)
-
Confirm inetd is runningRun 'lssrc -a | grep inetd' to check if the inetd super-server daemon is activeAffected if inetd is not running, the flaw cannot be triggered since it requires inetd to handle the ttdbserver connection
-
Check if ttdbserver is enabled in inetd.confSearch for 'ttdbserver' entry in /etc/inetd.conf using 'grep ttdbserver /etc/inetd.conf'Affected if The ttdbserver entry exists and is not commented out, indicating ToolTalk server is configured for dynamic port launch
-
Verify ttdbserver is actively used or accessibleCheck for active ToolTalk services or confirm the ttdbserver port is open via 'netstat -an | grep' on typical ToolTalk ports (usually 5001-5002 range for dynamic assignment)Affected if ToolTalk services are in use and inetd is attempting dynamic port assignment, which triggers the binding to port N-1 instead of N
A system is affected only if it runs AIX 4.1.5 with inetd active and the ttdbserver entry enabled in inetd.conf for ToolTalk services.
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 ttdbserver entry in inetd.conf if ToolTalk services are unnecessary, or ensure ttdbserver is launched with explicit port configuration rather than relying on dynamic port assignment. Consider upgrading from the obsolete AIX 4.1.5 if still in production.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-1075 — 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-1999-1075 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