CVE-2000-0215
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 · uneditedVulnerability in SCO cu program in UnixWare 7.x allows local users to gain privileges.
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 confidenceLocal privilege escalation vulnerability in the SCO cu program on UnixWare 7.x allows unprivileged local users to gain elevated privileges. The cu utility, used for calling remote systems, contains a flaw that can be exploited by local attackers to obtain root 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= 7.0= 7.0.1= 7.1= 7.1.1CVSS 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 UnixWare versionRun 'uname -a' or check /etc/version to determine the exact OS versionAffected if The version shown is 7.0, 7.0.1, 7.1, or 7.1.1
-
Locate the cu binaryRun 'which cu' or 'find /usr -name cu -type f 2>/dev/null' to find the cu utilityAffected if The cu binary exists on the system at a standard location like /usr/bin/cu
-
Check cu binary permissionsRun 'ls -l /usr/bin/cu' (or the path found above) to inspect permissionsAffected if The cu binary has the setuid bit set (permissions show -rwsr-xr-x or similar with 's' in the owner execute field)
-
Verify cu ownershipRun 'ls -l /usr/bin/cu' and check the owner columnAffected if The cu binary is owned by root and has setuid permissions, making it exploitable for privilege escalation
A system is affected if it runs UnixWare 7.0, 7.0.1, 7.1, or 7.1.1 and has the cu binary present with root ownership and setuid permissions enabled.
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 security patches for UnixWare 7.x if available. Restrict or remove setuid permissions from the cu binary if not required, and limit local user access to sensitive system utilities.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0215 — 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-2000-0215 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