CVE-2004-1970
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 · uneditedSamsung SmartEther SS6215S switch, and possibly other Samsung switches, allows remote attackers and local users to gain administrative access by providing the admin username followed by a password that is the maximum allowed length, then pressing the enter key after the resulting error message.
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 confidenceThe Samsung SmartEther SS6215S switch contains an authentication bypass vulnerability where entering the admin username followed by a maximum-length password and pressing enter after an error message grants administrative access. This appears to be a flaw in the error handling path of the authentication logic that incorrectly elevates privileges upon certain error conditions.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify the device modelAccess the switch console or management interface and retrieve the hardware model and firmware version information. This is typically shown in the system overview or device status page, or can be obtained via CLI commands like 'show version' or 'show system-info'.Affected if The device is a Samsung SmartEther or Securecomputing SS6215S switch, as this is the only affected model.
-
Check if management interface is accessibleDetermine whether the switch management interface (telnet, SSH, or web UI) is reachable on the network. Attempt to connect to the typical management ports (23 for telnet, 22 for SSH, 80/443 for web).Affected if The management interface is exposed to untrusted networks, creating the condition where an attacker could attempt the authentication bypass.
-
Verify the authentication bypass conditionAttempt to authenticate by entering the admin username, followed by a maximum-length password string, then pressing Enter immediately after triggering an error condition (such as entering an incorrect password first). Observe whether the session escalates to administrator privileges without valid credentials.Affected if The authentication bypass succeeds and grants administrative access, confirming the device is vulnerable.
A user is affected if they have a Samsung SmartEther SS6215S switch with accessible management interface where the described password manipulation grants admin access without valid credentials.
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 dataIf the device is still supported by Samsung, apply any available firmware updates. Otherwise, restrict network access to management interfaces using ACLs or place management networks behind firewalls to limit exposure to untrusted users.
- 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-2004-1970 — 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-2004-1970 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