CVE-1999-1567
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 · uneditedSeapine Software TestTrack server allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service (high CPU) via (1) TestTrackWeb.exe and (2) ttcgi.exe by connecting to port 99 and disconnecting without sending any data.
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 confidenceSeapine TestTrack server contains a denial of service vulnerability where connecting to port 99 (TestTrackWeb.exe or ttcgi.exe) and disconnecting without sending data causes high CPU consumption, likely due to a loop or resource handling issue in the web/cgi components.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify if TestTrack software is installedCheck common installation paths such as C:\Program Files\Seapine\TestTrack or look for TestTrack in Add/Remove Programs. Also check for running processes named TestTrackServer.exe, TestTrackWeb.exe, or ttcgi.exe using Task Manager or command: tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq TestTrackWeb.exe"Affected if TestTrack software is installed and the web/CGI components are present on the system
-
Check if port 99 is listeningRun command: netstat -an | findstr :99 or use port scanning tools to check if port 99 is open and accepting connectionsAffected if Port 99 is open and listening, indicating TestTrackWeb or ttcgi services are exposed
-
Verify the CGI executable existsLocate TestTrackWeb.exe or ttcgi.exe in the TestTrack installation directory, commonly under the cgi-bin or web folderAffected if TestTrackWeb.exe or ttcgi.exe exists in the installation directory and is accessible
-
Confirm version is affectedCheck the installed TestTrack version through the application, registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Seapine\TestTrack, or the executable properties of TestTrackWeb.exe/ttcgi.exeAffected if Any version of Seapine TestTrack is installed since all versions are affected according to the CVE
The system is affected if Seapine TestTrack is installed with TestTrackWeb.exe or ttcgi.exe accessible on port 99, as connecting and disconnecting without sending data to this port triggers the CPU consumption issue.
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 patch from Seapine or restrict access to port 99 via firewall/ACL to untrusted networks. If no patch available, consider disabling TestTrackWeb.exe/ttcgi.exe services if not required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-1567 — 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-1999-1567 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