Pro100Hardware / appliance · Sonicwall

CVE-2003-1490

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2003-12-31
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
SonicWall Pro running firmware 6.4.0.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reset) via a long HTTP POST to the internal interface, possibly due to a buffer overflow.

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 · moderate confidence

SonicWall Pro firewall running firmware 6.4.0.1 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in its internal HTTP interface. Remote attackers can trigger a denial of service by sending a specially crafted long HTTP POST request, causing the device to reset.

MitigationUpgrade firmware to a patched version beyond 6.4.0.1, or if the hardware is end-of-life, replace with a supported model. Since the vulnerability is on the internal interface, ensure proper network segmentation and restrict access to management interfaces.

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
Pro100Hardware / appliance
Affected:= 6.4.0.1
Pro200Hardware / appliance
Affected:= 6.4.0.1
Pro300Hardware / appliance
Affected:= 6.4.0.1

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Complete

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SonicWall model
    Log into the SonicWall management interface or check the device label to confirm the exact model: Pro100, Pro200, or Pro300
    Affected if The device is NOT a Pro100, Pro200, or Pro300 model - this CVE does not apply to other SonicWall models
  2. Check firmware version
    Navigate to the SonicWall management console, go to System > Status or the Firmware/Upgrade section to view the currently installed firmware version
    Affected if The firmware version is NOT exactly 6.4.0.1 - only version 6.4.0.1 is affected
  3. Verify HTTP management interface is enabled
    In the SonicWall management interface, go to System > Administration or Network > Interfaces to confirm the internal HTTP (port 80) management interface is enabled
    Affected if HTTP management interface is disabled - the attack surface is not exposed, though the vulnerability still exists in the firmware code
  4. Check network accessibility of management interface
    Attempt to access the internal HTTP interface from a network perspective (e.g., curl http://<device-ip> or check firewall access rules) to see if the management port is reachable
    Affected if The HTTP interface is not network-accessible from untrusted segments - this reduces immediate exploitation risk but the flaw still exists in the firmware

A defender is affected only if they have a SonicWall Pro100, Pro200, or Pro300 device running firmware exactly version 6.4.0.1 with the internal HTTP management interface enabled and accessible.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade firmware to a patched version beyond 6.4.0.1, or if the hardware is end-of-life, replace with a supported model. Since the vulnerability is on the internal interface, ensure proper network segmentation and restrict access to management interfaces.

Fix this in Pro100 Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-1490 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2003-1490 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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