CVE-2000-0347
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 · uneditedWindows 95 and Windows 98 allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via a NetBIOS session request packet with a NULL source name.
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 and Windows 98 contain a flaw in the NetBIOS implementation where a remote attacker can send a specially crafted NetBIOS session request packet with a NULL source name, causing the system to crash or become unresponsive, resulting in a denial of service.
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
- 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 'winver' from the command prompt, or right-click 'My Computer' and select 'Properties', or check the system information panel. Look for Windows 95 or Windows 98 in the version information.Affected if The system is running Microsoft Windows 95 or Microsoft Windows 98 (any version).
-
Verify NetBIOS service statusOpen Control Panel, go to 'Network' or 'Network and Dial-up Connections', double-click the network adapter, and check if 'NetBEUI' or 'File and Printer Sharing for Microsoft Networks' is bound and enabled. Alternatively, run 'net start' from command prompt and look for 'NetBIOS' or 'NetBEUI' in the list of running services.Affected if NetBEUI or NetBIOS over TCP/IP is installed and enabled on the system.
-
Check for exposed NetBIOS network portsUse the command 'netstat -an' or a port scanner to check if the system is listening on UDP ports 137 (NetBIOS Name Service), 138 (NetBIOS Datagram Service), or TCP ports 139 (NetBIOS Session Service) or 445 (SMB).Affected if The system has NetBIOS-related ports (137, 138, 139, or 445) open and listening on the network.
A system is affected if it is running Windows 95 or Windows 98 with NetBEUI or NetBIOS over TCP/IP enabled and exposed to a network where a malicious NetBIOS session request with a NULL source name could be received.
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 95 and 98 are end-of-life and receive no security updates, the primary remediation is to upgrade these legacy systems to a supported operating system version, or if upgrade is not feasible, disable NetBIOS/NetBEUI services on these machines to block the attack vector.
- 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-2000-0347 — 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-2000-0347 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