dbcve.org
LinuxOperating system · Redhat

CVE-2000-0093

HIGH · 10.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2000-01-21
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
An installation of Red Hat uses DES password encryption with crypt() for the initial password, instead of md5.

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 confidence

Red Hat Linux installations from this era used DES (Data Encryption Standard) for password hashing via the crypt() function instead of the stronger MD5 algorithm. DES produces a 56-bit key output and is cryptographically weaker than MD5, making passwords more susceptible to brute-force and dictionary attacks.

MitigationReconfigure the system to use MD5 password hashing (or stronger algorithms like SHA-512) and migrate existing user passwords to the new hashing scheme to ensure adequate protection.

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
LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 6.1

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
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 checks

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

  1. Check the installed Red Hat Linux version
    Run 'cat /etc/redhat-release' or 'cat /etc/redhat-version' to verify the exact version
    Affected if The version displayed is 6.1 specifically (other versions or distributions are not affected by this CVE)
  2. Identify the password hashing algorithm in use
    Check the format of existing user password hashes in /etc/shadow. DES hashes are 13 characters total (2 char salt + 11 char hash). MD5 hashes start with $1$
    Affected if User password hashes in /etc/shadow use the 13-character DES format (not starting with $1$ for MD5)
  3. Verify PAM password configuration
    Inspect /etc/pam.d/system-auth or /etc/pam.d/passwd for the 'password' stack. Look for 'crypt_style' or 'md5' or 'des' entries in the pam_cracklib or pam_unix module parameters
    Affected if PAM is configured to use DES (crypt=des or no md5 specification in Red Hat 6.1 default configuration)
  4. Check system-wide crypt library behavior
    Run 'python3 -c "import crypt; print(crypt.mksalt(crypt.METHOD_DES))"' or check glibc version. On affected systems, crypt() defaults to DES method
    Affected if The system defaults to DES password method (crypt.METHOD_DES in Python crypt module)

A system is affected if it is specifically Red Hat Linux 6.1 and is using DES-based password hashing (13-character hashes) rather than MD5 or stronger algorithms for user passwords in /etc/shadow.

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

Reconfigure the system to use MD5 password hashing (or stronger algorithms like SHA-512) and migrate existing user passwords to the new hashing scheme to ensure adequate protection.

Fix this in Linux Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation8.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
36.0 hours of engineering $6,400
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0093 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2000-0093 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