CVE-2000-0421
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 process_bug.cgi script in Bugzilla allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters.
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 process_bug.cgi script in Bugzilla contains a command injection vulnerability where unsanitized user input is passed to shell execution functions, allowing remote attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands via metacharacters.
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= 2.8CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 Bugzilla installation and versionLocate the Bugzilla installation directory and check the version file (typically VERSION or bugzilla-version file in the root directory)Affected if The installed version is Bugzilla 2.8 exactly
-
Locate the process_bug.cgi scriptSearch for the process_bug.cgi file within the Bugzilla installation, typically found in the cgi-bin or scripts directoryAffected if The file exists in the Bugzilla installation
-
Inspect process_bug.cgi for shell execution functionsExamine the source code of process_bug.cgi for use of dangerous functions such as system(), exec(), open() with pipes, or backtick operators that invoke shell commandsAffected if The script contains any shell execution function calls that process user-supplied data
-
Check for unsanitized user input in shell callsReview the code around shell execution functions to determine if parameters come directly from CGI parameters (like $cgi->param or $FORM{}) without passing through a sanitization functionAffected if User input from CGI parameters flows directly to shell execution functions without sanitization or escaping of shell metacharacters
A system is affected if it runs Bugzilla version 2.8 with the process_bug.cgi script containing shell execution functions that process unsanitized user input from CGI parameters.
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 vendor patches for this vulnerability; if no patch exists, refactor the code to use safe APIs that avoid shell execution, or implement strict input validation to reject shell metacharacters.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0421 — 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-2000-0421 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