Pix Firewall SoftwareOperating system · Cisco
CVE-2000-0150
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 · uneditedCheck Point Firewall-1 allows remote attackers to bypass port access restrictions on an FTP server by forcing it to send malicious packets that Firewall-1 misinterprets as a valid 227 response to a client's PASV attempt.
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 confidenceCheck Point Firewall-1 contains a vulnerability where it misinterprets maliciously crafted packets as valid FTP 227 responses to PASV commands. Attackers can exploit this to bypass port access restrictions on FTP servers by forcing the server to send crafted packets that the firewall incorrectly trusts, allowing unauthorized network access.
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
Pix Firewall SoftwareOperating system
= 4.1\(6\)= 4.1\(6b\)= 4.2\(1\)= 4.2\(2\)= 4.3= 4.4\(4\)= 5.0= 3.0= 4.0CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Check Point Firewall-1 installationRun 'fw ver' or check the installation directory for Check Point Firewall-1 componentsAffected if Check Point Firewall-1 version 3.0 or 4.0 is installed
-
Identify Cisco PIX installationRun 'show version' on the PIX device or check the firmware versionAffected if Cisco PIX is running version 4.1(6), 4.1(6b), 4.2(1), 4.2(2), 4.3, 4.4(4), or 5.0
-
Verify FTP inspection module statusCheck firewall policy or configuration for enabled inspection modules related to FTP (such as 'ftp-inspection' or 'FTP PRC')Affected if FTP inspection is enabled and the firewall processes FTP 227 PASV responses
-
Check FTP-related firewall rulesReview firewall ruleset for Allow rules that permit FTP data channel connections based on firewall-interpreted 227 responsesAffected if Firewall rules permit FTP data channels that rely on the 227 response parsing for port authorization
You are affected if you run Check Point Firewall-1 versions 3.0 or 4.0 or Cisco PIX versions 4.1(6) through 5.0, and you have FTP inspection enabled or permit FTP traffic through the firewall.
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-supplied patches for Check Point Firewall-1 and upgrade to a supported version. Additionally, implement strict FTP traffic inspection and consider restricting FTP data channel connections to prevent the firewall from accepting spoofed 227 responses.
Fix this in Pix Firewall Software
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0150 — 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-2000-0150 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