CVE-2003-0063
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 xterm terminal emulator in XFree86 4.2.0 and earlier allows attackers to modify the window title via a certain character escape sequence and then insert it back to the command line in the user's terminal, e.g. when the user views a file containing the malicious sequence, which could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands.
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 xterm terminal emulator in XFree86 4.2.0 and earlier allows attackers to modify the window title via a specific character escape sequence (ESC]0;...BEL) and then inject it back to the command line when the user views a file containing the malicious sequence, potentially allowing arbitrary command execution through the shell.
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= 4.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.3= 4.1.0= 4.2.0= 4.2.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Confirm xterm is installedRun 'which xterm' or 'dpkg -l | grep xterm' (Debian) / 'rpm -qa | grep xterm' (RHEL) to see if the xterm package is present on the systemAffected if xterm is installed and the system is running XFree86 4.2.1 or earlier versions (4.0, 4.0.1, 4.0.3, 4.1.0, 4.2.0)
-
Identify the XFree86 versionRun 'XFree86 -version' or check '/var/log/XFree86.0.log' for the version string. On Debian-based systems, also check 'dpkg -l | grep xfree86'Affected if The installed XFree86 version is 4.2.1, 4.2.0, 4.1.0, 4.0.3, 4.0.1, or 4.0 (exact match versions)
-
Verify xterm binary versionRun 'xterm -version' to get the xterm version number, which typically correlates with the underlying XFree86 releaseAffected if The xterm version corresponds to XFree86 4.2.1 or earlier
-
Check if window title escape sequences can be processedCreate a test file containing the escape sequence (printf '\033]0;test\007\n') and use 'cat' or 'less' to display it in xterm, observing whether the window title changesAffected if The window title changes to 'test' after viewing the file, indicating the vulnerable escape sequence handling is active
If the system runs XFree86 versions 4.0 through 4.2.1 with xterm and displays untrusted content that could contain escape sequences, the environment 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 dataUpdate to a patched version of xterm/XFree86 that sanitizes escape sequences, or migrate to a modern terminal emulator that properly handles and filters control sequences from untrusted input.
- 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-2003-0063 — 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-2003-0063 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