CVE-2000-0221
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 Nautica Marlin bridge allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a zero length UDP packet to the SNMP port.
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 Nautica Marlin bridge (a network device) contains a vulnerability where sending a zero-length UDP packet to the SNMP service port causes the device to crash or become unavailable, resulting in a denial of service condition.
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 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 device modelQuery the device via SNMP using sysDescr OID (1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0) or check physical hardware labeling to confirm it is a Nortel Nautica Marlin bridgeAffected if The device identifies as a Nortel Nautica Marlin bridge (any version)
-
Verify SNMP service statusQuery the device via SNMP to confirm the SNMP service is enabled and responding on UDP port 161Affected if SNMP is enabled and responding on the device
-
Check SNMP port network accessibilityPerform a UDP port scan from external/untrusted networks to determine if port 161 (SNMP) is reachable, or review firewall rules to identify exposureAffected if SNMP port 161 is accessible from networks that are not trusted management sources
-
Test for denial of service conditionIf SNMP is enabled and accessible, send a zero-length UDP packet to port 161 and observe if the device becomes unresponsive or crashesAffected if The device crashes or becomes unavailable after receiving a zero-length UDP packet to the SNMP port
A defender is affected if they have a Nortel Nautica Marlin bridge with SNMP service enabled and the SNMP port is network-accessible, as this enables the zero-length UDP packet denial of service attack.
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 dataIf SNMP is not required, disable the SNMP service on the device. Otherwise, implement firewall rules to restrict SNMP port access to trusted management sources only, and contact the vendor for firmware updates.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0221 — 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-2000-0221 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