CVE-2002-1199
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 · uneditedThe getdbm procedure in ypxfrd allows local users to read arbitrary files, and remote attackers to read databases outside /var/yp, via a directory traversal and symlink attack on the domain and map arguments.
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 confidenceypxfrd (NIS map transfer daemon) contains a directory traversal vulnerability in its getdbm procedure. The vulnerability allows local users to read arbitrary files via path traversal sequences (..) in the domain and map arguments, and permits remote attackers to read database files outside the intended /var/yp directory. The issue is compounded by symlink attack vectors on these arguments.
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= 2.2= 2.3= 2.4= 5.0.5= 5.0.6= 5.0.6a= 9.0= 5.7= 5.8CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Determine if ypxfrd daemon is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep ypxfrd' or 'rpcinfo -p' to list RPC services and look for ypxfrdAffected if ypxfrd process is running and exposed (especially on network-facing systems)
-
Identify ypxfrd versionCheck the package version using the system's package manager (rpm, pkgadd, etc.) or check the binary version with 'ypxfrd -v' if supportedAffected if The installed version matches Caldera Openlinux 2.2/2.3/2.4, Sco Openserver 5.0.5/5.0.6/5.0.6a, Sun Solaris 9.0, or Sun SunOS 5.7/5.8
-
Verify ypxfrd RPC service is registered and exposedRun 'rpcinfo -p localhost' or 'rpcinfo -p' to check if the ypxfrd RPC program (typically program number 100069) is registered and listening on portsAffected if ypxfrd is registered as an RPC service and accessible (listening on a port)
-
Check /var/yp directory permissions and contentsRun 'ls -la /var/yp' to inspect permissions on the NIS map directory and verify if it contains only expected map filesAffected if The /var/yp directory exists and ypxfrd has access to it (this is the intended directory, but traversal can escape it)
You are affected if ypxfrd is running and the installed version matches one of the affected Caldera, Sco, or Sun versions listed, combined with the ypxfrd RPC service being accessible to local or remote users who could exploit the getdbm procedure directory traversal.
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 dataRestrict access to ypxfrd service, implement strict input validation and path sanitization in the getdbm procedure to prevent directory traversal, and consider disabling ypxfrd if NIS transfer functionality is not required. Apply any available vendor patches.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1199 — 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-2002-1199 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