CVE-2004-1624
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 · uneditedCarbon Copy 6.0.5257 does not drop system privileges when opening external programs through the help topic interface, which allows local users to gain privileges via (1) the help topic interface in CCW32.exe, which launches Notepad, or (2) the help button in the Carbon Copy Scheduler (CCSched.exe).
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 confidenceCarbon Copy 6.0.5257 runs with elevated (system/administrator) privileges and fails to drop these privileges before launching external programs through its help topic interface. Specifically, both CCW32.exe (help topic interface launching Notepad) and CCSched.exe (help button in Carbon Copy Scheduler) execute external applications without dropping elevated privileges, allowing local users to gain system-level access.
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= 5.0= 6.0CVSS 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
- 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 Carbon Copy installation and versionSearch for Carbon Copy installation directories (commonly in Program Files) and check for version information in the executable properties or registry keys under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Altiris\Carbon Copy or similar pathsAffected if The installed version is 5.0 or 6.0 exactly
-
Locate vulnerable executablesSearch for CCW32.exe and CCSched.exe files on the system, typically found in the Carbon Copy installation folderAffected if Either CCW32.exe or CCSched.exe exists on the system and Carbon Copy version is 5.0 or 6.0
-
Check Carbon Copy service startup accountOpen Services control panel, find the Carbon Copy service (or related Altiris service), and examine the 'Log On As' account setting to determine if it runs as SYSTEM, Administrator, or another elevated accountAffected if The service runs as SYSTEM, LocalSystem, or an Administrator-level account
-
Verify file permissions on vulnerable executablesRight-click on CCW32.exe and CCSched.exe, go to Properties > Security, and check which users or groups have Read/Execute permissionsAffected if Non-administrative users have access to execute these files
A user is affected if Carbon Copy version 5.0 or 6.0 is installed with CCW32.exe or CCSched.exe accessible to standard users while the application runs under an elevated SYSTEM or Administrator account.
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 dataSince this is a 2004 vulnerability in an older version, the primary remediation is to upgrade to a patched version of Carbon Copy or replace the software. If upgrade is not possible, restrict local access to trusted administrators only and consider running the application with least-privilege user accounts rather than SYSTEM/Administrator.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-1624 — 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-2004-1624 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