CVE-2002-1777
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 · uneditedNOTE: this issue has been disputed by the vendor. Symantec Norton AntiVirus (NAV) 2002 allows remote attackers to bypass e-mail scanning via a filename in the Content-Type field with an excluded extension such as .nch or .dbx, but a malicious extension in the Content-Disposition field, which is used by Outlook to obtain the file name. NOTE: the vendor has disputed this issue, acknowledging that the initial scan is bypassed, but Norton AntiVirus or the Office plug-in would detect the virus before it is executed
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 confidenceSymantec Norton AntiVirus 2002 has a filename parsing discrepancy in email scanning. The antivirus scans based on the Content-Type header's filename extension (e.g., .nch, .dbx which were excluded), but Microsoft Outlook uses the Content-Disposition field to determine the actual file name for users, allowing malicious attachments with dangerous extensions to bypass the initial scan.
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= 2002CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Norton AntiVirus 2002 is installedCheck the installed programs list or look for Norton AntiVirus in Program Files (typically C:\Program Files\Norton AntiVirus). Verify the version is exactly 2002 by checking the program's About or Help information.Affected if The installed version is Norton AntiVirus 2002 specifically.
-
Verify email scanning is enabledOpen Norton AntiVirus and navigate to Options or Settings. Look for email scanning settings (often under 'Email Scanning' or 'Internet Worm Protection'). Confirm the email scanner is turned on.Affected if Email attachment scanning is actively enabled in the Norton AntiVirus configuration.
-
Check email scanning behavior for attachmentsReview the Norton AntiVirus email scanning configuration. Look for settings that specify how attachments are scanned - specifically whether it relies on the Content-Type header extension (like .nch, .dbx) rather than examining the actual filename from Content-Disposition.Affected if The email scanner is configured to scan based solely on Content-Type header extensions without inspecting the Content-Disposition field for the true filename.
You are affected if Norton AntiVirus 2002 is installed with email scanning enabled and it parses attachment filenames only from Content-Type headers rather than Content-Disposition fields.
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 dataEnsure antivirus definitions are current and consider deploying additional email gateway scanning layers; the vendor disputes this as a vulnerability claiming detection occurs before execution via secondary scanning.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1777 — 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-2002-1777 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