CVE-2001-0682
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 · uneditedZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro allows a local attacker to cause a denial of service by running a trojan to initialize a ZoneAlarm mutex object which prevents ZoneAlarm from starting.
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 confidenceZoneAlarm's firewall startup process relies on a named mutex object. A local attacker can run a trojan that pre-initializes this specific mutex before ZoneAlarm attempts to start. When ZoneAlarm tries to create its mutex, it finds it already exists and fails to initialize, preventing the firewall from starting and leaving the system unprotected.
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>= 2.6all versionsCVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 ZoneAlarm is installedCheck for ZoneAlarm or ZoneAlarm Pro installation directories or registry entries for the product (commonly in Program Files or via Add/Remove Programs)Affected if ZoneAlarm or ZoneAlarm Pro software is found on the system
-
Determine the installed versionLocate version information in the installed program's about dialog, executable properties, or registry entry for the product versionAffected if The version is 2.6 or higher for ZoneAlarm Pro, or any version for ZoneAlarm (all versions affected)
-
Verify firewall startup statusObserve whether ZoneAlarm's firewall initializes and runs when the system starts or when the ZoneAlarm service/application is launchedAffected if The firewall fails to start or reports it cannot initialize its protection modules
A system is affected if it runs any version of ZoneAlarm (all versions) or ZoneAlarm Pro 2.6+, where the firewall fails to initialize due to a pre-existing mutex.
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 dataThis is a legacy vulnerability in 2001-era software. The remediation involves updating to current ZoneAlarm/Check Point endpoint protection products, which have fixed mutex handling. If legacy software must be used, implement application whitelisting to prevent unauthorized executables from pre-creating the mutex.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2001-0682 — 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-2001-0682 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