CVE-1999-1195
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 · uneditedNAI VirusScan NT 4.0.2 does not properly modify the scan.dat virus definition file during an update via FTP, but it reports that the update was successful, which could cause a system administrator to believe that the definitions have been updated correctly.
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 confidenceNAI VirusScan NT 4.0.2 reports successful virus definition updates via FTP even when the scan.dat file fails to update properly, creating a false sense of security where administrators believe definitions are current when they are not.
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= 4.0.2CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Confirm installed VirusScan versionCheck the About or version information in the NAI VirusScan NT interface, or check the program's executable properties for version 4.0.2Affected if The installed version is exactly Network Associates VirusScan NT 4.0.2
-
Identify update mechanismExamine the VirusScan update configuration settings to determine if FTP is used for retrieving virus definitionsAffected if FTP-based updates are configured as the definition update method
-
Locate scan.dat fileFind the scan.dat virus definition file in the VirusScan installation directory (typically in the program folder or a definitions subfolder)Affected if The scan.dat file exists in the expected installation path
-
Check actual scan.dat modification dateRight-click the scan.dat file in Windows Explorer and view Properties to see the Last Modified date, or use the command 'dir scan.dat /T:W' to display the last write timeAffected if The file's modification date differs significantly from what VirusScan reports as the current definition date
-
Compare reported vs actual definition dateIn the VirusScan interface, note the definition date displayed in the status or update section, then manually compare it to the scan.dat file's actual modification timestampAffected if The interface reports a definition date newer than the scan.dat file's actual last modification date, indicating a false update success report
A system is affected if it runs NAI VirusScan NT version 4.0.2 with FTP-based definition updates and the software displays a definition date that does not match the actual scan.dat file modification timestamp.
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 dataVerify virus definition dates manually through the antivirus interface and consider upgrading to a supported antivirus solution, as this version is obsolete.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-1195 — 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-1999-1195 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