CVE-2003-0517
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 · uneditedfaxrunqd.in in mgetty 1.1.28 and earlier allows local users to overwrite files via a symlink attack on JOB files.
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 faxrunqd.in component in mgetty 1.1.28 and earlier creates JOB files in a predictable location without proper safeguards against symlink attacks. Local users can exploit this by creating symbolic links in the job spool directory, causing the fax daemon to overwrite arbitrary files when processing fax jobs.
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<= 1.1.28CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check if mgetty is installedRun 'mgetty -V' or 'rpm -q mgetty' or 'dpkg -l mgetty' to determine if the mgetty software is present on the systemAffected if mgetty is not installed then this CVE does not apply
-
Determine installed mgetty versionRun 'mgetty -V' and note the version number, or use package manager query commands to retrieve the installed versionAffected if The version is 1.1.28 or earlier, indicating the vulnerable code is present
-
Identify if faxrunqd daemon component is in useCheck for the presence of faxrunqd or faxq_clean in the system, typically found in /usr/sbin/ or /usr/local/sbin/, or check if fax services are configured in init scripts or systemdAffected if The fax daemon components (faxrunqd) are present and configured, meaning the vulnerable code path can be triggered
-
Inspect fax spool directory permissionsLocate the fax spool directory (commonly /var/spool/fax or /var/spool/mgetty, check /etc/mgetty/faxrunqd.config if available) and run 'ls -ld <spool_directory>' to examine permissionsAffected if The spool directory is writable by untrusted local users (world-writable or group-writable where the group includes untrusted users), allowing symlink attack exploitation
The environment is affected if mgetty version 1.1.28 or earlier is installed with faxrunqd enabled, and the fax spool directory permits untrusted local users to create files or symlinks within it.
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 mgetty to version 1.1.29 or later which includes proper file creation with O_EXCL flags to prevent symlink attacks. Alternatively, restrict permissions on the fax spool directory to prevent untrusted local users from creating files.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-0517 — 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-2003-0517 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