CVE-2001-0059
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 · uneditedpatchadd in Solaris allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink 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 confidenceThe patchadd utility in Solaris contains a symlink vulnerability that allows local users to manipulate the tool into overwriting arbitrary files on the system. By creating a symbolic link with a predictable filename in a writable directory, an attacker can cause patchadd to write to unintended locations, potentially overwriting system files or escalating privileges.
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= 5.7CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:H/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.
-
Identify the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the Solaris version. Look for SunOS 5.7 or Solaris 7.Affected if The system is running SunOS 5.7 (Solaris 7)
-
Verify the patchadd utility existsCheck if /usr/sbin/patchadd or /sbin/patchadd exists using 'ls -la /usr/sbin/patchadd'Affected if The patchadd utility is present on the system
-
Inspect permissions on /var/sadmRun 'ls -ld /var/sadm' to check if the directory has overly permissive write accessAffected if The /var/sadm directory is world-writable or writable by unprivileged users
-
Check for writable directories used by patchaddReview directories where patchadd operates for write access by non-root users using 'ls -ld /var/sadm/patch' and related directoriesAffected if Patch-related directories are writable by local unprivileged users
-
Scan for suspicious symbolic linksUse 'find /var/sadm -type l -ls' to identify symbolic links in the patchadm directory structure that could be exploitedAffected if Symbolic links exist in /var/sadm or related directories that could be manipulated by an attacker
The environment is affected if running SunOS 5.7 (Solaris 7) with the patchadd utility present and writable directories accessible to local unprivileged users.
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 dataApply the relevant Solaris security patch from Oracle (or Sun) for this vulnerability. Alternatively, ensure proper file permissions on /var/sadm and restrict local user access to prevent symlink creation in writable directories used by patchadd.
- 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-2001-0059 — 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-2001-0059 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