CVE-2000-0773
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 · uneditedBajie HTTP web server 0.30a allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a URL that contains a "....", a variant of the dot dot directory traversal attack.
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 confidenceBajie HTTP web server 0.30a contains a directory traversal vulnerability where attackers can use sequences of four or more dots ('....') in URLs to escape the web document root and access arbitrary files on the host system.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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 Bajie HTTP server is runningIdentify processes listening on HTTP ports (typically 80, 8080) and verify the server banner or process name matches 'Bajie' or 'Bajie Java Http Server'Affected if Bajie HTTP server is actively running and serving HTTP requests
-
Check installed Bajie versionExamine server headers, banner strings, or any version file within the Bajie installation directory to determine if the version is 1.0 or 0.30aAffected if The installed version is 1.0 or 0.30a (as these are the affected versions)
-
Test for traversal vulnerability with '....' sequenceSend an HTTP GET request to the server with a URL path containing four or more dots (e.g., '/..../..../etc/passwd' or '/..../windows/win.ini') and observe if the server returns the contents of files outside the document rootAffected if The server returns file contents from outside the web document root when four or more dots are used in the URL path
A system is affected if it runs Bajie Java Http Server version 1.0 or 0.30a AND accepts four-dot ('....') sequences in URLs to traverse outside the document root.
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 Bajie or migrate to a maintained web server with proper input validation; implement web application firewall rules to block traversal sequences like '..' and '....' in URLs.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0773 — 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-2000-0773 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