CVE-2002-1914
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 · unediteddump 0.4 b10 through b29 allows local users to cause a denial of service (execution prevention) by using flock() to lock the /etc/dumpdates file.
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 confidenceThe dump utility versions 0.4 b10 through b29 use flock() to lock /etc/dumpdates, which allows local users to cause a denial of service by pre-emptively locking this file. Once locked, the dump command cannot acquire the lock and fails to execute, preventing backup operations.
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= 0.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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.
-
Check if dump utility is installedRun 'dump -V' or 'rpm -q dump' or 'dpkg -l dump' to determine if the dump utility is present on the system and note the version numberAffected if dump is installed with version 0.4 and a build between b10 and b29 (for example: 0.4b15, 0.4b20, 0.4b28)
-
Identify exact dump versionRun 'dump -V 2>&1' or check the package manager output to extract the full version string including the build suffix (b10, b11, etc.)Affected if The version string contains 0.4 followed by b10 through b29
-
Verify /etc/dumpdates file existsRun 'ls -la /etc/dumpdates' to confirm the file exists on the systemAffected if The file /etc/dumpdates exists and is readable/writable by the user being tested
-
Check /etc/dumpdates permissions and lockabilityRun 'ls -la /etc/dumpdates' and attempt to understand if unprivileged users can acquire a flock lock on this file (the vulnerability allows any user to lock it, preventing dump from running)Affected if The file exists and permissions allow unprivileged users to open it for writing, enabling them to pre-emptively lock it with flock()
You are affected if dump version 0.4b10 through 0.4b29 is installed and the /etc/dumpdates file exists with permissions that allow unprivileged users to lock it, allowing them to block dump command execution.
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 dataUpdate to a newer version of dump beyond b29, or modify /etc/dumpdates file permissions to prevent unprivileged users from locking it, or implement an alternative locking mechanism that doesn't rely on user-controlled flock().
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1914 — 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-2002-1914 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