CVE-2000-0330
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 networking software in Windows 95 and Windows 98 allows remote attackers to execute commands via a long file name string, aka the "File Access URL" 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 confidenceWindows 95/98 networking software contains a vulnerability where processing a specially crafted long file name string in a URL can allow remote command execution. This File Access URL vulnerability exploits how the older Windows networking stack handles certain URL constructs.
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 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:H/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 operating system versionRun 'winver' from the command prompt or check System Properties to confirm the Windows versionAffected if The system is running Microsoft Windows 95 or Microsoft Windows 98 (any version)
-
Verify the network stack is activeCheck if network adapters are installed and enabled by viewing Network Control Panel or running 'ipconfig /all'Affected if Network adapters are present and the TCP/IP or NetBIOS networking stack is loaded
-
Confirm the system is accessible on the networkCheck for assigned IP address via 'ipconfig' and verify the system has network connectivityAffected if The system has a valid IP address and can communicate on a network
-
Check for URL handling servicesExamine if Web sharing or File and Printer Sharing services are enabled, as these handle URL requestsAffected if Network file sharing services that process URL requests are enabled
A system is affected if it is running Windows 95 or Windows 98 with any network connectivity enabled, as the vulnerability requires the vulnerable URL parsing code in the Windows networking stack to be active.
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 dataThis affects end-of-life Windows 95/98 systems with no available vendor patches. Remediation requires decommissioning or isolating these legacy systems, as they should not be connected to any network in 2024.
- 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-2000-0330 — 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-2000-0330 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