CVE-2000-0842
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 search97cgi/vtopic" in the UnixWare 7 scohelphttp webserver allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) 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 confidencePath traversal vulnerability in UnixWare 7's scohelphttp web server where the search97cgi/vtopic component fails to properly sanitize directory traversal sequences (..), allowing remote attackers to read arbitrary files on the system via HTTP requests.
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= 7.0CVSS 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 UnixWare 7.0 is installedRun 'uname -a' or check '/etc/release' to identify the operating system versionAffected if The system is running UnixWare 7.0
-
Verify scohelphttp web server is runningCheck for running HTTP services on common ports (80, 8080) using 'netstat -an | grep LISTEN' or 'ps -ef | grep scohelp'Affected if The scohelphttp daemon is active and listening for HTTP connections
-
Confirm the vulnerable endpoint is exposedCheck if the URL path /search97cgi/vtopic is accessible via HTTP (e.g., curl http://localhost/search97cgi/vtopic)Affected if The search97cgi/vtopic component responds to HTTP requests (returns 200 or error rather than 404)
-
Test for directory traversal vulnerabilitySend a crafted HTTP request with '../' sequences (e.g., http://target/search97cgi/vtopic?file=../../etc/passwd) and observe if file contents are returnedAffected if The server returns the contents of files outside the document root when .. sequences are used in the request
The system is affected if it runs UnixWare 7.0 with the scohelphttp web server and the search97cgi/vtopic endpoint is accessible and responds to directory traversal sequences.
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 dataRestrict or disable access to the vulnerable search97cgi/vtopic component, apply available vendor patches for UnixWare 7, or implement web application firewall rules to block directory traversal patterns in HTTP requests.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-0842 — 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-2000-0842 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