CVE-2001-0534
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 · uneditedMultiple buffer overflows in RADIUS daemon radiusd in (1) Merit 3.6b and (2) Lucent 2.1-2 RADIUS allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary commands.
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 confidenceMultiple buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the RADIUS daemon (radiusd) in Merit 3.6b and Lucent 2.1-2 versions. These stack-based overflows allow remote attackers to overwrite execution flow and either crash the service (DoS) or execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the RADIUS process.
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= 2.1.2= 3.6bCVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/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.
-
Identify if RADIUS daemon is runningCheck for running radiusd process using commands like 'ps aux | grep radiusd' or 'systemctl status radiusd' depending on systemAffected if No radiusd process is found, the system is not running the vulnerable service
-
Determine the RADIUS product and versionRun 'radiusd -v' or check package management system (rpm -q, dpkg -l) for radiusd package version, or inspect /usr/sbin/radiusd binary version infoAffected if Version matches Merit 3.6b or Lucent 2.1-2 (or falls within these version ranges)
-
Confirm the RADIUS implementation vendorCheck the binary or package details to determine if it is Merit RADIUS or Lucent RADIUS implementationAffected if Implementation is identified as Merit or Lucent RADIUS daemon
-
Check network exposure of RADIUS portsVerify if UDP ports 1812 (authentication) and 1813 (accounting) are open and listening using 'netstat -ulnp' or 'ss -ulnp'Affected if RADIUS ports are exposed to untrusted network segments (internet or untrusted LAN)
System is affected if it runs Merit RADIUS 3.6b or Lucent RADIUS 2.1-2 with network-accessible RADIUS ports (UDP 1812/1813).
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 dataImmediately upgrade to a patched version of the affected RADIUS software or apply vendor-supplied patches. If patching is not immediately possible, restrict network access to the RADIUS ports (UDP 1812/1813) to trusted sources only.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2001-0534 — 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-2001-0534 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