LinuxOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2000-0118
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 Red Hat Linux su program does not log failed password guesses if the su process is killed before it times out, which allows local attackers to conduct brute force password guessing.
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 confidenceThe Red Hat Linux su utility fails to log failed password attempts when the su process is terminated before its timeout period completes. This creates a window where local attackers can repeatedly attempt su passwords without triggering any audit logs, enabling brute-force attacks against the su password.
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
= 2.0= 2.1= 3.0.3= 4.0= 4.1= 4.2= 5.0= 5.1= 5.2= 6.0= 6.1all versions= 1.1.3= 1.1.4= 2.4all versions= 4.1.3= 4.1.4= 5.0= 5.1= 5.2= 5.3= 5.4= 5.5CVSS 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 and versionRun 'uname -a' and check /etc/redhat-release (for Red Hat) or 'uname -a' and 'cat /etc/release' (for Solaris/SunOS)Affected if The OS matches one of the affected versions: Red Hat Linux 2.0-6.1, Solaris (any or 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 2.4), or SunOS (any or 4.1.3-5.5)
-
Locate the su binary versionRun 'su --version' or 'su -V' or check the binary directly with 'ls -la /bin/su' or '/usr/bin/su'Affected if The installed su version matches one of the affected versions listed in the CVE (2.0-6.0 range for Red Hat, or specific Solaris/SunOS versions)
-
Verify if su failed attempts are being loggedAttempt a failed su command (e.g., 'su - root' with a wrong password), then check system logs: look for entries in /var/log/secure, /var/log/messages, /var/log/auth.log, or /var/adm/messages depending on OSAffected if Failed su attempts do NOT appear in the system logs after the process is terminated before timeout completes
-
Examine PAM configuration for suCheck the PAM configuration for su service: typically /etc/pam.d/su or /etc/pam.d/su-l. Look for pam_unix.so, pam_tally, or pam_faillock modulesAffected if The PAM configuration lacks enhanced account lockout or logging modules (pam_tally, pam_faillock) that would compensate for the missing su logs
A user is affected if they run an affected Red Hat, Solaris, or SunOS version AND observe that failed su password attempts are not being logged when the su process is terminated before timeout.
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 enhanced authentication logging through PAM modules (e.g., pam_tally or pam_faillock), restrict su access via sudoers to specific users, and implement account lockout policies to mitigate brute-force attempts.
Fix this in Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2000-0118 — 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-2000-0118 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