CVE-2004-1889
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 · uneditedUnknown vulnerability in ftpd in SGI IRIX 6.5.20 through 6.5.23 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (hang) via a link failure with Microsoft Windows.
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 confidenceDenial of service vulnerability in SGI IRIX 6.5.20-6.5.23 ftpd daemon allows remote attackers to hang the service via a link failure condition involving Microsoft Windows clients. The specific technical mechanism is not disclosed.
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= 6.5.20= 6.5.20f= 6.5.20m= 6.5.21= 6.5.21f= 6.5.21m= 6.5.22= 6.5.23CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/version' to confirm the OS is SGI IRIX and note the exact version number (e.g., 6.5.21, 6.5.22, etc.)Affected if The version shown is 6.5.20, 6.5.21, 6.5.22, or 6.5.23 (including f and m variants)
-
Confirm ftpd daemon is runningRun 'ps -ef | grep ftpd' or check inetd/xinetd configuration to see if the FTP daemon is actively runningAffected if The ftpd process is running or FTP service is enabled in inetd/xinetd
-
Verify FTP service is listeningRun 'netstat -an | grep :21' or 'sockinfo ftpd' to check if port 21 is in LISTEN state and accepting connectionsAffected if Port 21 (FTP) is open and listening for connections
A system is affected if it runs SGI IRIX version 6.5.20 through 6.5.23 AND has the ftpd daemon running and accessible on the network.
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 dataIsolate affected IRIX systems on restricted network segments; block or limit FTP access at network perimeter; consider disabling ftpd if not required as IRIX 6.5.x is end-of-life and unlikely to receive vendor patches.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-1889 — 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-2004-1889 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