CVE-2003-0616
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 · uneditedFormat string vulnerability in ePO service for McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator 2.0, 2.5, and 2.5.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a POST request with format strings in the computerlist parameter, which are used when logging a failed name resolution.
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 confidenceFormat string vulnerability in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator's ePO service allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via POST requests containing format string specifiers (e.g., %s, %n) in the computerlist parameter. These unsanitized strings are passed directly to logging functions when recording failed name resolution events, allowing attackers to overwrite memory and inject malicious code.
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= 2.0= 2.5= 2.5.1CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 if McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is installedCheck the system for ePO installation by looking for the ePolicy Orchestrator service or application directories. On Windows, this may be in Program Files\McAfee\ePolicy Orchestrator or similar locations. Verify the ePO service exists in Windows Services.Affected if ePolicy Orchestrator software is present on the system
-
Determine the installed ePO versionCheck the version of the installed ePolicy Orchestrator. This can typically be found in the ePO console under Help > About, or by examining the ePO server version information through the management interface.Affected if The installed version is 2.0, 2.5, or 2.5.1
-
Verify the ePO server service is runningConfirm the ePolicy Orchestrator server service is active and accepting connections. Check if the ePO server (typically on port 8443 or similar) is listening and accessible.Affected if The ePO service is running and accessible over the network
-
Check if the ePO web interface is exposedAccess the ePolicy Orchestrator web console login page. The vulnerability is present in the POST handler for the computerlist parameter in the ePO service.Affected if The ePO web interface is reachable and accepts POST requests to the vulnerable endpoint
-
Confirm the computerlist parameter accepts user inputSend a test POST request to the ePO server with format string specifiers in the computerlist parameter. If the server processes these without sanitization, the vulnerability is present.Affected if The computerlist parameter in POST requests accepts and processes format string specifiers like %s or %n without filtering
A system is affected if McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator versions 2.0, 2.5, or 2.5.1 are installed and the ePO web service is running and accessible, allowing unauthenticated POST requests with format string specifiers in the computerlist parameter.
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 ePolicy Orchestrator (3.x or later) that properly sanitizes user input before passing it to logging functions, or implement input validation to reject format string specifiers in the computerlist parameter.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-0616 — 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-2003-0616 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