CVE-2002-1197
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 · uneditedbugzilla_email_append.pl in Bugzilla 2.14.x before 2.14.4, and 2.16.x before 2.16.1, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in a system call to processmail.
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 bugzilla_email_append.pl script in Bugzilla versions 2.14.x before 2.14.4 and 2.16.x before 2.16.1 contains a command injection vulnerability. User-supplied input containing shell metacharacters is passed unsanitized to a system() call executing processmail, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary OS commands.
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= 2.14= 2.14.1= 2.14.2= 2.14.3= 2.16CVSS 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 Bugzilla installation and versionLocate the Bugzilla installation directory and check the version file (typically VERSION or Bugzilla.pm) to determine the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is 2.14.x (where x is 0-3) or 2.16, meaning it is before 2.14.4 or 2.16.1
-
Locate the bugzilla_email_append.pl scriptSearch for the file named bugzilla_email_append.pl within the Bugzilla installation directory or cgi-bin directoryAffected if The file exists in the Bugzilla installation, indicating the vulnerable component is present
-
Check for the vulnerable system() call patternExamine bugzilla_email_append.pl content and look for a system() call that executes processmail with user-supplied input passed directly without sanitization or use of proper quotingAffected if The script contains a system() call that passes unsanitized input to processmail, allowing shell metacharacters to be injected
-
Verify the script is accessible to usersCheck file permissions and web server configuration to determine if bugzilla_email_append.pl is executable or accessible via web requestAffected if The script is executable or web-accessible, making the command injection exploitable
You are affected if your Bugzilla version is 2.14.x before 2.14.4 or 2.16.x before 2.16.1 and the bugzilla_email_append.pl script exists with an unsanitized system() call to processmail.
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 Bugzilla to version 2.14.4, 2.16.1, or later which contains the patched code, or manually apply input sanitization to the system call in bugzilla_email_append.pl to prevent shell metacharacter injection.
- 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-2002-1197 — 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-2002-1197 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