CVE-2002-1920
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in FtpXQ 2.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a MKD command with a long directory name.
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 confidenceFtpXQ FTP server version 2.5 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in the MKD (make directory) command handling. When a remote attacker sends a MKD command with an excessively long directory name, the server's buffer is overrun, causing the service to crash and resulting in a denial of service.
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= 2.5CVSS 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.
-
Confirm FtpXQ FTP server is installedCheck the system for FtpXQ FTP server software. Look for the executable or service named 'FtpXQ' or 'ftpxq' in installed programs, running services, or common installation directories such as C:\Program Files\FtpXQ or C:\FtpXQ.Affected if FtpXQ FTP server is present on the system
-
Identify installed version of FtpXQRun the command 'ftpxq -v' or 'ftpxq.exe -v' from the installation directory, or right-click on the ftpxq.exe file and select Properties > Version to view the product version.Affected if The version reported is 2.5 exactly
-
Verify FTP service is running and accessibleCheck if the FTP service is running by looking at running processes for ftpxq.exe or checking services.msc for the FtpXQ service. Attempt to connect to the FTP server using an FTP client or telnet to the configured FTP port (default 21).Affected if The FTP service is running and accepting connections
-
Confirm MKD command handling is enabledConnect to the FTP server and attempt to issue a MKD command with a short test directory name to verify the command handler is active and functional.Affected if The MKD command is accepted and processed by the server
If FtpXQ version 2.5 is installed and the FTP service is running with MKD command handling enabled, the environment is affected by CVE-2002-1920 and vulnerable to the buffer overflow via excessively long directory names in MKD commands.
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 dataIf a patched version of FtpXQ is available, upgrade immediately. Otherwise, implement input length validation on the MKD command handler to reject directory names exceeding the buffer size, or restrict FTP access via firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted users.
- 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-2002-1920 — 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-2002-1920 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