CVE-2002-0379
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in University of Washington imap server (uw-imapd) imap-2001 (imapd 2001.315) and imap-2001a (imapd 2001.315) with legacy RFC 1730 support, and imapd 2000.287 and earlier, allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code via a long BODY request.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in University of Washington imapd server allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code via a specially crafted long BODY request. The flaw exists in the handling of legacy RFC 1730 support in imap-2001/2001a and imapd 2000.287 and earlier versions.
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= 2000.283= 2000.284= 2000.287= 2000.315CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 UW imapd server is installedCheck for imapd process running on the system, or look for UW imapd binaries in /usr/libexec/imapd, /usr/sbin/imapd, or similar locations. On Linux, use 'ps aux | grep imapd' or check package management tools like 'rpm -qa | grep uw-imap' or 'dpkg -l | grep imap'Affected if UW imapd server binary is found running or installed on the system
-
Determine the installed imapd versionRun 'imapd --version' or 'imapd -v' if available. For packaged installations, use 'rpm -q uw-imapd' or 'dpkg -l uw-imapd' to query the package versionAffected if The version matches 2000.283, 2000.284, 2000.287, 2000.315, or falls within the 2001/2001a release line, or is 2000.287 or earlier
-
Check if the imap service is network-exposedReview network configuration files and listening services. Use 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp' to see if imap (port 143) or imaps (port 993) are listening on external interfacesAffected if The imapd service is listening on a network interface accessible to remote users
-
Verify legacy RFC 1730 support configurationExamine the imapd configuration files (typically in /etc or /usr/local/etc) for settings related to RFC 1730 legacy support. Check the imapd banner or use a telnet/netcat connection to port 143 to observe the server greeting and capabilitiesAffected if Legacy RFC 1730 support is explicitly enabled in the configuration or appears in the server capability response
Your environment is affected if a UW imapd server of version 2000.287 or earlier, or any 2001/2001a version, is running and network-accessible, and an attacker can authenticate to the imap service to send specially crafted BODY requests.
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 to a patched version of uw-imapd that addresses this vulnerability, or disable legacy RFC 1730 support if not required. Consider network segmentation to limit exposure and ensure strong authentication mechanisms.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0379 — 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-2002-0379 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