CVE-2000-0609
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 · uneditedNetWin dMailWeb and cwMail 2.6g and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a long username parameter.
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 confidenceNetWin dMailWeb and cwMail versions 2.6g and earlier contain a denial-of-service vulnerability triggered by sending an overly long username parameter to the service. The lack of proper input length validation allows remote attackers to crash the service by supplying excessive data in the username field.
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= 2.5e= 2.6g= 2.6i= 2.6j= 2.5e= 2.6g= 2.6i= 2.6jCVSS 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 if NetWin dMailWeb or cwMail is installedCheck the system for the presence of dMailWeb or cwMail services. Look for processes named 'dmailweb' or 'cwmail', or check installed software listings for these products.Affected if Either dMailWeb or cwMail software is found running on the system
-
Determine the installed versionLocate the version information for the installed dMailWeb or cwMail. Common methods include checking the program's about dialog, running 'dmailweb -v' or 'cwmail -v' if available, or reading version details from the executable or its metadata.Affected if The version matches 2.5e, 2.6g, 2.6i, or 2.6j
-
Verify the web interface is enabledConfirm that the HTTP/HTTPS service component of dMailWeb or cwMail is active. Check the service configuration for web server or HTTP listener settings.Affected if The web interface service is enabled and listening for connections
-
Check network exposureDetermine if the dMailWeb or cwMail web service is accessible from the network. Review firewall rules, network ACLs, or binding addresses to see if the service port (typically 80 or 8080) is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet.Affected if The web service is reachable from remote network locations
You are affected if you are running version 2.5e, 2.6g, 2.6i, or 2.6j of NetWin dMailWeb or cwMail with the web interface enabled and accessible.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of NetWin dMailWeb/cwMail beyond 2.6g, or implement input length validation on the username parameter at the application or web gateway level to reject abnormally long requests.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0609 — 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-2000-0609 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