CVE-2002-1228
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 · uneditedUnknown vulnerability in NFS on Solaris 2.5.1 through Solaris 9 allows an NFS client to cause a denial of service by killing the lockd daemon.
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 confidenceVulnerability in Solaris NFS implementation allows a remote NFS client to kill the lockd daemon on the server, causing denial of service for NFS locking operations. The specific attack mechanism was not publicly disclosed ('unknown vulnerability'), but it exploits the NFS protocol handling in Solaris 2.5.1 through 9.
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= 2.5.1= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0= 5.5= 5.5.1= 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the exact Solaris or SunOS versionAffected if The version matches 2.5.1, 7.0, 8.0, or 9.0 for Solaris, or 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.7, or 5.8 for SunOS
-
Verify NFS service is runningRun 'svcs -a | grep nfs' or check for nfsd processes with 'ps -ef | grep nfsd'Affected if NFS services (nfsd, mountd) are actively running on the system
-
Confirm lockd daemon is activeRun 'ps -ef | grep lockd' to check if the lockd process is runningAffected if The lockd daemon is running, as this is the specific target of the denial of service attack
-
Check NFS server configurationInspect /etc/dfs/dfstab or run 'share' command to see what directories are exported via NFSAffected if The system is configured as an NFS server exporting shares to network clients
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Solaris/SunOS version (2.5.1, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 or 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.7, 5.8) with NFS and lockd services enabled and exposed to untrusted network clients.
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 appropriate Sun/Alcatel patches from 2002 (if available) or migrate to supported Solaris versions, as these legacy versions are long past end-of-life. Network filtering to restrict unauthorized NFS clients can provide interim protection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1228 — 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-2002-1228 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