CVE-2000-0168
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 · uneditedMicrosoft Windows 9x operating systems allow an attacker to cause a denial of service via a pathname that includes file device names, aka the "DOS Device in Path Name" 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 · high confidenceThis is a denial of service vulnerability in Microsoft Windows 9x (Windows 95/98) where the use of reserved DOS device names (such as CON, PRN, AUX, NUL, COM1-9, LPT1-9) in file pathnames causes the operating system to crash or become unstable. The vulnerability exploits how the older Windows 9x kernel handles these special device names when they appear in file system operations.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the operating system versionRun 'winmsd' from the Start/Run dialog, or check System Properties via Control Panel, to determine if the OS is Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows 98SEAffected if The system is any version of Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows 98SE (all versions are affected)
-
Determine if untrusted users can create files on the systemReview file permissions on publicly accessible directories (such as shared folders, temp directories, or download locations) and check which user accounts have write accessAffected if Untrusted or low-privilege users have write access to any directory where they can create files using reserved device names
The environment is affected if it is running Windows 95, 98, or 98SE and untrusted users can create or reference files using reserved DOS device names (CON, PRN, AUX, NUL, COM1-9, LPT1-9) in file system operations.
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 dataSince Windows 9x is end-of-life and unsupported, the primary mitigation is to migrate to a modern supported operating system. If Windows 9x systems must remain in service as legacy assets, implement strict access controls to prevent untrusted users from creating or referencing files with reserved device names, and isolate such systems on restricted network segments.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0168 — 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-2000-0168 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