CVE-2000-0100
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 SMS Remote Control program is installed with insecure permissions, which allows local users to gain privileges by modifying or replacing the program.
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 SMS Remote Control program is installed with insecure file permissions that allow local users to modify or replace the executable. This enables local privilege escalation as any authenticated user can inject malicious code into the program and execute it with elevated privileges.
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
- 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.
-
Confirm SMS version 2.0 is installedCheck installed programs or SMS components for Microsoft Systems Management Server version 2.0Affected if SMS 2.0 is installed on the system
-
Verify SMS Remote Control component existsLocate the SMS Remote Control executable within the SMS installation directoryAffected if The SMS Remote Control executable is present on the system
-
Check current file permissions on the executableView the security/permissions properties of the SMS Remote Control executable file to see which users have accessAffected if The executable file grants modify or write permissions to users other than Administrators and SYSTEM
-
Test for write access by non-privileged usersAttempt to modify or replace the SMS Remote Control executable using an unprivileged account, or use accesschk/icacls to enumerate write access for authenticated usersAffected if Non-privileged users can write to or replace the SMS Remote Control executable file
A user is affected if SMS 2.0 is installed with the Remote Control component and non-privileged accounts have write access to its executable.
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 dataConfigure restrictive ACLs on the SMS Remote Control executable and related files to prevent write access by non-privileged users; ensure only Administrators and the SYSTEM account have modify permissions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 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-2000-0100 — 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-2000-0100 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