CVE-2000-0099
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in UnixWare ppptalk command allows local users to gain privileges via a long prompt argument.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the ppptalk command on UnixWare allows local attackers to gain elevated privileges by supplying an excessively long prompt argument, which overwrites memory and executes arbitrary code with elevated permissions.
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= 7.0.0= 7.0.1= 7.1.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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.
-
Identify the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or check /etc/os-release to determine if the system is running UnixWare 7.0.0, 7.0.1, or 7.1.0Affected if The OS is Sco Unixware version 7.0.0, 7.0.1, or 7.1.0
-
Locate the ppptalk binarySearch for the ppptalk executable using 'find / -name ppptalk -type f 2>/dev/null' or check common binary directoriesAffected if The ppptalk binary exists on the system
-
Check ppptalk file permissions and ownershipRun 'ls -la <path_to_ppptalk>' to examine if the binary has SUID or SGID bits set, or is owned by rootAffected if The binary has SUID root permissions, making it a privilege escalation vector
-
Verify ppptalk is accessible to local usersCheck if non-privileged users can execute ppptalk by examining file permissions and testing executionAffected if Local unprivileged users can execute the ppptalk binary
A user is affected if their system runs Sco UnixWare 7.0.0, 7.0.1, or 7.1.0 AND the ppptalk binary exists with executable permissions accessible to local users.
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 patches for UnixWare or remove/disable the ppptalk binary if no patch is available; given the 2000 vintage, strongly consider retiring this legacy system as UnixWare is obsolete.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0099 — 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-2000-0099 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