CVE-2003-0849
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in net.c for cfengine 2.x before 2.0.8 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain packets with modified length values, which is trusted by the ReceiveTransaction function when using a buffer provided by the BusyWithConnection function.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in cfengine 2.x (before 2.0.8) in the net.c network handling code. The ReceiveTransaction function trusts length values from incoming packets without proper validation, using them to process data into a fixed-size buffer provided by BusyWithConnection. Attackers can send specially crafted packets with manipulated length values to overflow the buffer and execute arbitrary code remotely.
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= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.0.6= 2.0.7= 2.1.0CVSS 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.
-
Check if cfengine is installedRun 'rpm -q cfengine' for RPM-based systems, or 'dpkg -l cfengine' for Debian-based systems, or 'cfengine -V' / 'cfagent --version' to query the binary directly.Affected if cfengine is not installed at all - the system is not affected.
-
Determine the installed cfengine versionRun 'cfengine -V' or 'cfagent --version' to display the version number. Compare it to the affected range: 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 and 2.1.0.Affected if The installed version is 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 2.0.6, 2.0.7, or 2.1.0.
-
Verify if cfengine network daemon is runningRun 'netstat -tlpn | grep 5308' or 'ss -tlpn | grep 5308' to check if cfserverd is listening on port 5308/TCP. Also check running processes for cfserverd.Affected if cfserverd is not running or not listening on network ports - the remote attack vector is not present.
-
Confirm network exposure of cfengine portReview firewall rules (iptables -L, ufw status, or cloud security groups) to determine if port 5308/TCP is accessible from untrusted networks.Affected if Port 5308 is open to untrusted or public networks - the vulnerability is remotely exploitable.
You are affected if cfengine version 2.0.0-2.0.7 or 2.1.0 is installed AND the cfengine daemon is running and accessible over the network on port 5308.
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 cfengine to version 2.0.8 or later. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, restrict network access to cfengine daemon ports (5308/TCP by default) to prevent untrusted external sources from reaching the service.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-0849 — 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-2003-0849 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