CVE-2002-0987
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 · uneditedX server (Xsco) in OpenUNIX 8.0.0 and UnixWare 7.1.1 does not drop privileges before calling programs such as xkbcomp using popen, which could allow local users to gain privileges.
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 confidenceThe X server (Xsco) in OpenUNIX 8.0.0 and UnixWare 7.1.1 runs with elevated privileges but fails to drop those privileges before executing external programs via popen(). When calling utilities like xkbcomp, the X server retains its privileged context, allowing local attackers to execute arbitrary code with elevated permissions and gain root access.
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= 7.1.1= 8.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or check /etc/release or /etc/os-release to determine the exact OS versionAffected if The OS is not OpenUNIX 8.0.0 or UnixWare 7.1.1 (other versions are not affected by this specific CVE)
-
Verify the Xsco X server package is installedCheck for the presence of Xsco X server binaries or packages - look for /usr/X11R6/bin/Xsco or check installed packages using the system package manager if availableAffected if The Xsco X server package is not installed (no X server means this vulnerability does not apply)
-
Determine if the X server binary has setuid root privilegesRun 'ls -la' on the X server binary (typically /usr/X11R6/bin/X or Xsco) to check for the 's' flag in permissions (e.g., -rwsr-xr-x)Affected if The X server binary has setuid root permissions (the 's' bit is set and owner is root), meaning it runs with elevated privileges
-
Confirm the X server is actively runningRun 'ps -ef' or check process list for the X server process (look for X, Xsco, or X11 processes)Affected if The X server process is running with root privileges (this confirms the vulnerable configuration is active)
A user is affected if their system runs OpenUNIX 8.0.0 or UnixWare 7.1.1 with the Xsco X server installed, running, and configured with setuid root privileges, allowing the popen() privilege escalation to be exploited.
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 vendor patches for OpenUNIX 8.0.0 and UnixWare 7.1.1 if available; otherwise, modify the X server source code to drop privileges (using setuid()/setgid()) before calling popen() and restore them after, or replace the popen() calls with privilege-separated subprocess execution.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0987 — 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-2002-0987 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