CVE-2000-0498
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 · uneditedUnify eWave ServletExec allows a remote attacker to view source code of a JSP program by requesting a URL which provides the JSP extension in upper case.
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 confidenceUnify eWave ServletExec contains a case-sensitivity vulnerability where requesting JSP files using uppercase extensions (e.g., .JSP) instead of lowercase (.jsp) causes the server to return the unexecuted source code instead of processing the JSP. This allows remote attackers to view sensitive application logic, credentials, and configuration details embedded in JSP source files.
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 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm ServletExec installationCheck for ServletExec installation directories (e.g., C:\Program Files\ServletExec, C:\ServletExec) or look for servletexec.exe process running on the systemAffected if ServletExec is found running on the system - all versions are affected by this vulnerability
-
Locate JSP web applicationsFind JSP source files in the webroot directory served by ServletExec, typically under a 'public_html' or 'webapps' folderAffected if JSP files exist in the web-accessible directories
-
Test uppercase JSP extension accessUsing a web browser or curl, request a JSP file using an uppercase extension (e.g., http://target/page.JSP) instead of the standard lowercase (.jsp)Affected if The server returns the raw, unexecuted JSP source code containing scriptlet tags, comments, and embedded logic instead of rendered HTML output
-
Compare with lowercase extension behaviorRequest the same file using lowercase extension (e.g., http://target/page.jsp) and verify it returns processed/compiled outputAffected if Lowercase .jsp returns processed output but uppercase .JSP returns source code - this confirms the case-sensitivity vulnerability is present
If ServletExec is running and requesting JSP files with uppercase extensions (.JSP) reveals unexecuted source code while lowercase (.jsp) shows processed output, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2000-0498.
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 available vendor patches for ServletExec, or configure the servlet container to treat .JSP and .jsp equivalently. If patches are unavailable, consider migrating to a supported servlet container as this is a 2000-era vulnerability in legacy software.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0498 — 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-2000-0498 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