CVE-2002-1955
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 · uneditedIomega NAS A300U uses cleartext LANMAN authentication when mounting CIFS/SMB drives, which allows remote attackers to perform a man-in-the-middle attack.
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 confidenceThe Iomega NAS A300U transmits LANMAN (LM) authentication hashes in cleartext when CIFS/SMB shares are mounted, allowing remote attackers on the same network segment to intercept authentication credentials via man-in-the-middle attacks and recover plaintext passwords.
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= a300uCVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Identify device modelAccess the NAS web interface or check the physical device label to confirm the exact model is Iomega NAS A300uAffected if The device is an Iomega NAS A300u model
-
Verify CIFS/SMB is enabledLog into the NAS administration panel and check if CIFS/SMB file sharing services are turned onAffected if CIFS/SMB shares are enabled and accessible on the network
-
Check LANMAN authentication settingIn the NAS SMB/CIFS configuration settings, look for an authentication protocol option and determine if LANMAN (LM) hashing is enabledAffected if LANMAN (LM) authentication is explicitly enabled in the SMB settings
-
Capture SMB traffic on the local network segmentUse a packet capture tool (such as Wireshark or tcpdump) on the same network segment as the NAS and attempt to mount an SMB share; inspect the captured SMB packets for LM hash fields in the authentication negotiationAffected if Captured SMB traffic contains LM hash fields in cleartext during the authentication exchange
If the device is an Iomega A300u with CIFS/SMB enabled and LANMAN authentication is active, the NAS transmits LM hashes in cleartext and is affected by this vulnerability.
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 dataDisable LANMAN authentication on the NAS device and enforce NTLMv2 or stronger authentication protocols; if firmware updates are unavailable, isolate the device on a dedicated VLAN with restricted access.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1955 — 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-2002-1955 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