CVE-2003-0757
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 · uneditedCheck Point FireWall-1 4.0 and 4.1 before SP5 allows remote attackers to obtain the IP addresses of internal interfaces via certain SecuRemote requests to TCP ports 256 or 264, which leaks the IP addresses in a reply packet.
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 confidenceCheck Point FireWall-1 versions 4.0 and 4.1 before SP5 contain an information disclosure vulnerability where SecuRemote VPN client requests to TCP ports 256 or 264 cause the firewall to leak internal interface IP addresses in the response packet, allowing remote attackers to discover internal network topology.
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= 4.1CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Identify the installed Checkpoint Firewall-1 versionUse Checkpoint's status commands (cpstat, fw ver, or the management GUI) to retrieve the exact version and service pack levelAffected if Version is 4.0 or 4.1 without Service Pack 5 applied (SP4 or earlier)
-
Verify if SecuRemote VPN module is enabledCheck the firewall policy or configuration for active SecuRemote VPN objects, or review the enabled modules in the FireWall-1 management consoleAffected if SecuRemote VPN is installed and enabled in the firewall policy
-
Confirm TCP ports 256 and 264 are accessibleFrom an external host, attempt a TCP connection or SYN scan to ports 256 and 264 toward the firewall's external interfaceAffected if The firewall accepts connections on either TCP 256 or TCP 264 from untrusted networks
-
Test for internal IP leakage in VPN response packetsSend a crafted SecuRemote-style request to TCP port 256 or 264 and capture the response with a packet sniffer; examine if internal interface IP addresses appear in the responseAffected if Response packets contain RFC1918 private IP addresses (e.g., 10.x.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x, 192.168.x.x) that reveal internal network topology
If running Firewall-1 version 4.0 or 4.1 before SP5 with SecuRemote VPN enabled and TCP ports 256/264 exposed externally, internal IP addresses are being leaked and the environment is affected.
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 FireWall-1 Service Pack 5 or later to patch the vulnerability. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider network segmentation and firewall rule restrictions to limit exposure of internal interface addresses.
- 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-2003-0757 — 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-2003-0757 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