ListservApplication · Lsoft

CVE-2000-0632

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2000-07-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Buffer overflow in the web archive component of L-Soft Listserv 1.8d and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a long query string.

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 confidence

A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the web archive component of L-Soft Listserv version 1.8d and earlier. The flaw is triggered by sending an excessively long query string to the web archive, which overflows a buffer and enables remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the target system.

MitigationUpgrade L-Soft Listserv to a version beyond 1.8d that includes the security patch. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, disable or restrict network access to the web archive component until the upgrade can be performed.

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
ListservApplication
Affected:= 1.8c= 1.8d

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Listserv version
    Locate the Listserv installation directory and check the version file or executable properties. Common locations include /opt/listserv or C:\LISTSERV on Windows. Look for version information in the main executable, README, or version.txt file.
    Affected if The installed version is 1.8c or 1.8d (or any version 1.8d and earlier)
  2. Confirm web archive component is enabled
    Check the Listserv configuration files (typically listmaster.ini or config file in the Listserv root) for web archive settings. Look for parameters like WA or WEBARCHIVE, or check if the 'wa' or 'webarch' module is loaded.
    Affected if The web archive component is configured and active in the Listserv setup
  3. Verify web server is running
    Check if Listserv's built-in web server or attached web server (such as the L-Soft w3md.exe or external web server serving Listserv's CGI scripts) is currently running and accepting connections.
    Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible, making the vulnerable component reachable over the network
  4. Inspect for exploitation attempts
    Review Listserv's web archive access logs (typically in a /logs or /archive/logs directory) for unusually long query strings or patterns indicative of buffer overflow testing. Also check system logs for any unexpected commands or processes.
    Affected if Logs show long query strings (typically hundreds or thousands of characters) sent to the web archive CGI or script, or unexpected command execution on the server

A system is affected if L-Soft Listserv version 1.8c or 1.8d is installed with the web archive component enabled and accessible, regardless of whether exploitation has occurred.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade L-Soft Listserv to a version beyond 1.8d that includes the security patch. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, disable or restrict network access to the web archive component until the upgrade can be performed.

Fix this in Listserv Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0632 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2000-0632 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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