CVE-2002-2004
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 · uneditedportmapper in Compaq Tru64 4.0G and 5.0A allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a flood of packets.
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 RPC portmapper service in Compaq Tru64 4.0G and 5.0A is vulnerable to remote denial of service via packet flood. Attackers can send excessive packets to overwhelm and crash the portmapper, disrupting RPC-based services that depend on it for port mapping.
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= 4.0g= 5.0aCVSS 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.
-
Identify Tru64 versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/rcos' to determine the Compaq Tru64 version. Alternatively, check 'swlist -l product' if available.Affected if The installed version is 4.0g or 5.0a specifically (not other versions)
-
Verify portmapper service statusCheck if the RPC portmapper daemon (rpcbind or portmap) is running. Use 'ps -ef | grep -i rpc' or 'rpcinfo -p' to query the local portmapper.Affected if The portmapper process is running on the system
-
Confirm port 111 is listeningRun 'netstat -an | grep 111' or 'sockstat | grep 111' to check if TCP/UDP port 111 (the portmapper port) is in LISTEN or OPEN state.Affected if Port 111 TCP or UDP is listening and accepting connections
-
Test network exposure of portmapperFrom an external host or using 'nmap -p 111 target' or 'nc -zv target 111', verify if port 111 is reachable over the network.Affected if Port 111 is reachable from network segments where untrusted users could send traffic
You are affected if the system runs Compaq Tru64 4.0g or 5.0a AND the RPC portmapper service is running AND port 111 is network-accessible, making it susceptible to packet flood DoS attacks.
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 dataRestrict network access to portmapper (port 111 TCP/UDP) using firewall rules or ACLs. If the system is still in production, consider decomissioning this obsolete OS as Tru64 is no longer supported; otherwise apply any available vendor patches.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-2004 — 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-2002-2004 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