CVE-2002-2323
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 · uneditedSun PC NetLink 1.0 through 1.2 does not properly set the access control list (ACL) for files and directories that use symbolic links and have been restored from backup, which could allow local or remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
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 confidenceSun PC NetLink versions 1.0 through 1.2 fail to properly set Access Control Lists (ACLs) on files and directories that use symbolic links when they are restored from backup, potentially allowing attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.
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>= 1.0, <= 1.2CVSS 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.
-
Verify Sun PC NetLink installationCheck for the presence of Sun PC NetLink software on the system. Look for package files or installed binaries related to PC NetLink, typically found in /opt or listed via the system package manager (pkginfo on Solaris).Affected if Sun PC NetLink is installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionQuery the installed version of Sun PC NetLink using system commands such as pkginfo -l or by checking version strings in the binary (e.g., /opt/pcnl/bin/pcnlmd or similar). Compare the version number against the affected range 1.0 through 1.2.Affected if The installed version is 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, or any version within the 1.0-1.2 range
-
Identify symbolic links restored from backupReview backup restoration logs or audit trails to identify if any symbolic links were included in recent or past backup restoration operations. Check for files/directories that are symbolic links in the restored data.Affected if Symbolic link files or directories were restored from a backup
-
Inspect ACLs on restored symbolic linksUse the Solaris ACL commands (getfacl or ls -ld) to examine the Access Control List settings on the symbolic link files that were restored from backup. Compare against expected ACLs or parent directory defaults.Affected if The ACLs on restored symbolic links are missing, incorrect, or differ from the intended access controls, indicating the vulnerability is present
The environment is affected if Sun PC NetLink version 1.0-1.2 is installed AND symbolic link files were restored from backup, resulting in improperly set ACLs on those links.
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 dataReview and manually reset ACLs on all symbolic link files restored from backup, or migrate to a supported solution as Sun PC NetLink 1.x is obsolete (2002-era software).
- 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-2002-2323 — 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-2002-2323 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