CVE-2003-0609
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in the runtime linker, ld.so.1, on Solaris 2.6 through 9 allows local users to gain root privileges via a long LD_PRELOAD environment variable.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in the Solaris runtime linker (ld.so.1) on versions 2.6 through 9 allows local users to execute arbitrary code with root privileges by specifying an excessively long value in the LD_PRELOAD environment variable, which overwrites stack memory and redirects execution flow.
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= 2.6= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0all versions= 5.7= 5.8CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 the operating systemRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine if the system is SunOS/SolarisAffected if The system is not SunOS/Solaris, then it is not affected by this CVE
-
Determine the Solaris versionRun 'uname -r' or 'cat /etc/release' to get the exact Solaris version numberAffected if The version is NOT 2.6, 7, 8, or 9 (5.7, 5.8 in SunOS terms), then the system is not affected by this specific CVE
-
Verify the runtime linker existsCheck for the presence of /lib/ld.so.1 or /usr/lib/ld.so.1 using 'ls -la'Affected if The file does not exist, the vulnerability may not be present in this form
-
Check if LD_PRELOAD is in active useReview process environment variables and audit logs for usage of LD_PRELOAD, or inspect running processes with 'pargs' or 'pmap' on Solaris to see if any processes have LD_PRELOAD setAffected if LD_PRELOAD is actively being used by any process, the system is vulnerable to exploitation
-
Check for security patchesRun 'showrev -p' to list installed patches and verify if Oracle/Sun patches for this vulnerability are appliedAffected if No patches from Oracle/Sun for CVE-2003-0609 are installed, the vulnerability remains unpatched
The system is affected if it is running Solaris 2.6, 7, 8, or 9 (SunOS 5.7, 5.8) without the relevant security patches and LD_PRELOAD can be set or is in use.
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 dataApply Oracle/Sun security patches for this vulnerability on affected Solaris systems, or upgrade to a supported Solaris version. Consider restricting or monitoring LD_PRELOAD usage in production environments.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-0609 — 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-2003-0609 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