CVE-2000-1222
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 · uneditedAIX sysback before 4.2.1.13 uses a relative path to find and execute the hostname program, which allows local users to gain privileges by modifying the path to point to a malicious hostname program.
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 confidenceAIX sysback versions before 4.2.1.13 uses a relative path (e.g., just 'hostname') to execute the hostname program instead of an absolute path like /usr/bin/hostname, allowing local users to escalate privileges by modifying their PATH environment variable to point to a malicious hostname executable.
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<= 4.2.1.12CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Check if sysback is installedRun 'lslpp -l | grep sysback' or 'lsmcode -c -s sysback' to list installed sysback filesetsAffected if sysback is not installed or not found in lslpp output, the system is not affected by this specific vulnerability
-
Determine sysback versionRun 'lslpp -l | grep sysback' to see the version number in the third column (e.g., 4.2.1.12)Affected if The version listed is 4.2.1.12 or earlier (4.2.1.0 through 4.2.1.12 inclusive)
-
Verify PATH manipulation risk for privileged processesCheck the PATH environment variable of processes running with elevated privileges (e.g., run 'echo $PATH' for root and compare to the current user PATH)Affected if Privileged processes inherit a PATH that includes user-writable directories (like '.' or directories with weak permissions)
A system is affected if sysback version 4.2.1.12 or earlier is installed and the PATH for privileged sysback processes can be manipulated by a local user.
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 sysback to version 4.2.1.13 or later which uses an absolute path, or ensure PATH does not include user-writable directories for processes running with elevated privileges.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-1222 — 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-2000-1222 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