CVE-2000-0032
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 · uneditedSolaris dmi_cmd allows local users to crash the dmispd daemon by adding a malformed file to the /var/dmi/db database.
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 confidenceThe dmi_cmd utility in Solaris contains a vulnerability where local users can crash the dmispd (DMI Service Provider) daemon by placing a malformed file into the /var/dmi/db database directory. This is a local denial-of-service vulnerability that allows any local user to disrupt the DMI 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= 7.0= 5.7CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Check the Solaris versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to identify the installed Solaris versionAffected if The version is Solaris 7.0 (SunOS 5.7)
-
Verify if DMI components are installedCheck for the existence of /usr/sbin/dmi_cmd and /usr/sbin/dmispd using 'ls -la'Affected if The dmi_cmd utility and dmispd daemon binaries exist on the system
-
Determine if the dmispd daemon is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep dmispd' to check if the DMI Service Provider daemon is activeAffected if The dmispd process is currently running
-
Inspect the /var/dmi/db directory permissionsRun 'ls -lad /var/dmi/db' to view the directory permissions and ownershipAffected if The directory is writable by non-privileged users (permissions allow write for 'other' or group)
-
Check for malformed database filesList contents of /var/dmi/db using 'ls -la /var/dmi/db' to see if any unexpected or corrupted files existAffected if There are unexpected files in the database directory that were not created by the administrator
You are affected if running Solaris 7.0/SunOS 5.7 with dmispd daemon running and the /var/dmi/db directory has permissive write access that allows unprivileged users to add or modify files.
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 dataRestrict write access to the /var/dmi/db directory to privileged users only (e.g., chmod 755 or more restrictive permissions) and ensure the dmispd daemon runs with minimal necessary privileges.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0032 — 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-2000-0032 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