CVE-2002-2069
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 · uneditedPGP 6.x and 7.x does not clear Windows alternate data streams that are attached to files on NTFS file systems, which allows attackers to recover sensitive information that was supposed to be deleted.
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 confidencePGP 6.x and 7.x fails to clear Windows Alternate Data Streams (ADS) when securely deleting files on NTFS volumes. ADS allow additional hidden data to be attached to files, and when PGP deletes a file, the ADS content may persist on disk, enabling recovery of sensitive information that users believed was securely erased.
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>= 6.0.2, <= 6.5.8>= 7.0, <= 7.1.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 installed PGP versionCheck the Windows registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\PGP Corporation\PGP or look at the program's version information in Add/Remove Programs or the PGP application itselfAffected if The version falls within 6.0.2 to 6.5.8 or 7.0 to 7.1.1 (inclusive)
-
Confirm NTFS file system usageRun 'fsutil fsinfo volumeinfo C:' (or other drive letters) to check if the drives where PGP secure delete is used are formatted as NTFSAffected if NTFS is in use; the vulnerability only affects NTFS volumes, not FAT or other filesystems
-
Verify secure delete feature is configuredCheck PGP preferences or settings for secure wipe/secure delete options being enabled, or review if automated wiping policies are activeAffected if Secure delete or wipe features are turned on in PGP settings
-
Test for residual ADS after secure deletionAfter using PGP secure delete on a file with an ADS (create a test file with notepad test.txt:hiddendata, then secure delete it, then run 'dir /r' or 'streams' utility to check for lingering ADS)Affected if Alternate Data Streams persist after PGP claims to have securely deleted the file
You are affected if PGP version is between 6.0.2-6.5.8 or 7.0-7.1.1, you use NTFS volumes, and the secure delete feature is enabled, with ADS remaining after deletion.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of PGP that properly clears alternate data streams during secure deletion, or implement compensating controls such as manual ADS removal tools before file deletion.
- 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-2002-2069 — 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-2002-2069 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