Windows 95Operating system · Microsoft

CVE-1999-1201

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 1999-02-06
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Windows 95 and Windows 98 systems, when configured with multiple TCP/IP stacks bound to the same MAC address, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (traffic amplification) via a certain ICMP echo (ping) packet, which causes all stacks to send a ping response, aka TCP Chorusing.

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 confidence

Windows 95 and Windows 98 systems configured with multiple TCP/IP stacks bound to the same MAC address will cause all stacks to respond to a single ICMP echo request, resulting in traffic amplification and potential denial of service.

MitigationRemove duplicate TCP/IP stack bindings to the same MAC address, or migrate away from Windows 95/98 to a supported operating system.

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
Windows 95Operating system
Affected:all versions
Windows 98Operating system
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm the Windows version
    Open Command Prompt and run 'winver' or check System Properties (right-click My Computer, select Properties). Look for Windows 95 or Windows 98 in the OS name.
    Affected if The system is running any version of Microsoft Windows 95 or Microsoft Windows 98.
  2. Open Network Connections control panel
    Open Control Panel, then double-click Network (or run 'ncpa.cpl' from Run dialog). This displays all installed network protocols and bindings.
    Affected if The network configuration panel is accessible and shows network adapters.
  3. Examine TCP/IP protocol bindings
    For each network adapter listed, right-click and select Properties. Look for 'TCP/IP ->' entries in the list of installed components. Count how many TCP/IP protocol entries are bound to the same adapter.
    Affected if More than one TCP/IP protocol entry is bound to a single network adapter (same MAC address).
  4. Identify duplicate MAC address bindings
    In Network Connections, select each adapter and view its Configuration. Check the adapter's properties for the MAC address (also called Physical Address or Node Address). Compare MAC addresses across multiple TCP/IP stack entries.
    Affected if Two or more TCP/IP stacks are bound to network adapters sharing the same MAC address.

The environment is affected if running Windows 95 or Windows 98 AND has multiple TCP/IP protocol stacks bound to network adapters with identical MAC addresses.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Remove duplicate TCP/IP stack bindings to the same MAC address, or migrate away from Windows 95/98 to a supported operating system.

Fix this in Windows 95 Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-1201 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-1999-1201 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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