Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2000-0229
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 · uneditedgpm-root in the gpm package does not properly drop privileges, which allows local users to gain privileges by starting a utility from gpm-root.
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 gpm-root utility in the gpm package fails to properly drop elevated privileges after execution, allowing a local user to invoke external utilities with root-level access and thereby escalate privileges to root.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 2.0= 2.1= 2.2
LinuxOperating system
= 6.0= 6.1= 6.2= 1.18.1= 1.19= 5.3= 6.0= 6.1= 6.2= 6.3CVSS 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.
-
Check if gpm package is installedRun 'rpm -q gpm' on RedHat/SUSE or 'dpkg -l gpm' on Debian to see if the gpm package is installedAffected if The gpm package is installed and its version matches one of the affected versions (Debian 2.0/2.1/2.2, RedHat 6.0/6.1/6.2, Gpm 1.18.1/1.19, SUSE 5.3/6.0/6.1/6.2/6.3)
-
Verify gpm-root binary existsCheck for the existence of gpm-root binary by running 'which gpm-root' or 'find /usr -name gpm-root'Affected if The gpm-root binary exists on the system
-
Check gpm-root is invoked with root privilegesExamine how gpm-root is started by checking init scripts, system configuration, or running 'ps aux | grep gpm-root' to see if it runs as rootAffected if gpm-root is running as root (UID 0)
-
Confirm privilege handling issueReview gpm-root source code or behavior to verify it does not call setuid() or similar privilege dropping functions after executionAffected if gpm-root executes external utilities while still holding root privileges without properly dropping them first
The system is affected if gpm-root is installed and running with root privileges while failing to drop those privileges before executing external commands, allowing local users to invoke utilities with elevated access.
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 dataUpdate the gpm package to a version where gpm-root properly drops privileges, or replace gpm-root with a modern alternative that implements secure privilege handling.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0229 — 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-2000-0229 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