CVE-2000-0407
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in Solaris netpr program allows local users to execute arbitrary commands via a long -p option.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the Solaris netpr utility (part of the print service suite) allows local authenticated users to gain root privileges by supplying an overly long string via the -p command-line option. The netpr program historically ran with setuid root privileges, and improper bounds checking on the -p parameter permits overflow of a stack-based buffer, enabling arbitrary code execution with elevated privileges.
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= 2.6= 7.0= 8.0all versions= 5.7= 5.8CVSS 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.
-
Locate the netpr binaryRun 'ls -la /usr/lib/lp/bin/netpr' or 'find /usr -name netpr -type f 2>/dev/null' to find the netpr utilityAffected if the netpr binary exists on the system
-
Check for setuid root permissions on netprRun 'ls -la /usr/lib/lp/bin/netpr' and examine the permission bitsAffected if the file shows setuid root permissions (rwsr-xr-x or similar with 's' in the owner execute field) and is owned by root
-
Identify the installed operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the SunOS/Solaris versionAffected if the version is Solaris 2.6, 7.0, or 8.0, or SunOS 5.7 or 5.8, or any SunOS 5.x version in the 5.7-5.8 range
-
Verify access to the -p command-line optionRun '/usr/lib/lp/bin/netpr -?' or check the man page with 'man netpr' to confirm the -p option existsAffected if the -p option is documented and accessible to local authenticated users
A system is affected if the netpr binary exists with setuid root permissions AND the operating system is one of the affected SunOS/Solaris versions (2.6, 7.0, 8.0, 5.7, 5.8), allowing local users to exploit the buffer overflow via the -p parameter.
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 Oracle/Sun security patches for Solaris 2.6, 7, and 8 (specific patch IDs: 107451-01 and successors); alternatively, remove the setuid bit from /usr/lib/lp/bin/netpr if print functionality does not require elevated privileges, or migrate to patched Solaris versions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0407 — 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-2000-0407 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