CVE-2002-1974
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 · uneditedThe FTP service in Zaurus PDAs SL-5000D and SL-5500 does not require authentication, which allows remote attackers to access the file system as root.
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 FTP service bundled with Zaurus PDAs SL-5000D and SL-5500 lacks any authentication mechanism, allowing any remote attacker to connect without credentials and gain immediate root-level access to the entire file system. This is a pre-authentication remote privilege escalation vulnerability with a CVSS 10 score.
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= sl-5000d= sl-5500CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 device modelCheck the device label, system information, or boot screen for the exact model number - look for SL-5000D or SL-5500 markingAffected if The device is a Sharp Zaurus SL-5000D or SL-5500 model
-
Verify FTP service is runningCheck if port 21 is listening on the device, or check running services/processes for an FTP daemonAffected if FTP server is actively running and accepting connections on the network
-
Test FTP authentication requirementAttempt to connect to the device FTP port (21) using an FTP client without providing any username or passwordAffected if FTP connection succeeds without requiring any credentials and provides access to the file system
You are affected if you own a Sharp Zaurus SL-5000D or SL-5500 device with the FTP service enabled and the service accepts connections without authentication.
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.
dbcve · scopedImmediately disable the unauthenticated FTP service on affected devices; if FTP is required, implement network-level access controls to restrict to trusted IPs only, or migrate to a supported device platform since these legacy PDAs likely lack vendor security updates.
- Disable the FTP service on the Zaurus device if it is not required for normal operation
- If FTP access is required, restrict network access to the FTP port (TCP 21) using a firewall or network segmentation to prevent unauthorized remote access
- Configure the device firewall to block inbound FTP connections from untrusted networks
- If possible, replace the device with a supported model that receives security updates
- Consider using more secure file transfer alternatives such as SFTP or SCP if remote file access is needed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1974 — 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-2002-1974 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