CVE-2000-0097
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 · uneditedThe WebHits ISAPI filter in Microsoft Index Server allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files, aka the "Malformed Hit-Highlighting Argument" vulnerability.
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 WebHits ISAPI filter in Microsoft Index Server fails to properly validate hit-highlighting arguments, allowing remote attackers to supply malformed requests that bypass path validation and read arbitrary files from the server's file 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= 2.0CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 Microsoft Index Server 2.0 is installedCheck the Windows registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Index Server\2.0 for existence, or check the presence of the \Program Files\Index Server directory. In IIS Manager, verify Index Server is listed as an installed service.Affected if The registry key and Index Server 2.0 installation exist on the system.
-
Verify the WebHits ISAPI filter is loaded in IISOpen IIS Manager, right-click the web server, select Properties, then click ISAPI Filters tab. Look for an entry named 'WebHits' or pointing to a .dll related to hit-highlighting functionality.Affected if The WebHits ISAPI filter appears in the ISAPI Filters list with an enabled status.
-
Check if hit-highlighting is configuredExamine the Index Server catalog configuration files (.idq, .htw files) in the web root for queries containing the 'CiWebHit' parameter or 'htw' extension mappings in IIS. Also check for .htw script mapping in IIS application mappings.Affected if The .htw extension is mapped to a handler or .idq files using hit-highlighting parameters are present.
-
Inspect IIS script mapping for .htwIn IIS Manager, check the Application Configuration or Script Maps for .htw extension mapping to a DLL (typically webhits.dll or similar). Also check the registry at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\W3SVC\Parameters\ScriptMap for .htw entries.Affected if The .htw extension is mapped in IIS script maps pointing to a WebHits DLL.
A server is affected if Microsoft Index Server 2.0 is installed AND the WebHits ISAPI filter is enabled in IIS, enabling attackers to craft malformed hit-highlighting requests to read arbitrary 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 dataApply the Microsoft security patch for this vulnerability, or if hit-highlighting is not required, disable the WebHits ISAPI filter entirely in Index Server configuration.
- 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-2000-0097 — 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-2000-0097 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