CVE-2004-2339
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 · uneditedMicrosoft Windows 2000, XP, and possibly 2003 allows local users with the SeDebugPrivilege privilege to execute arbitrary code as kernel and read or write kernel memory via the NtSystemDebugControl function, which does not verify its pointer arguments. Note: this issue has been disputed, since Administrator privileges are typically required to exploit this issue, thus privilege boundaries are not crossed
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 NtSystemDebugControl Windows system call does not validate pointer arguments, allowing local users with SeDebugPrivilege to execute code at kernel level or read/write kernel memory. This affects Windows 2000, XP, and possibly 2003. The dispute notes that Administrator-level privileges are required for exploitation, somewhat diminishing the severity since privilege boundaries are not crossed.
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 versions= r2all 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Windows versionRun 'winver' or check System Properties to determine if the OS is Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003 R2Affected if The system is running any version of Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003 R2
-
Verify SeDebugPrivilege assignmentUse 'gpedit.msc' to view Group Policy settings under Computer Configuration > Windows Settings > Security Settings > User Rights Assignment, or run 'whoami /priv' in an elevated command prompt to list privileges for the current userAffected if SeDebugPrivilege is granted to any user account on the system (this privilege is typically granted to Administrators by default)
-
Confirm Administrator membershipRun 'whoami /groups' to list group memberships for the current user accountAffected if The user has Administrator-level access, which typically includes SeDebugPrivilege on affected systems
The environment is affected if running Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003 R2 and any user has SeDebugPrivilege (typically Administrators).
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 dataThese legacy operating systems (Windows 2000, XP, 2003) are all end-of-life and should be migrated to supported versions. If migration is not possible, restrict SeDebugPrivilege to minimal necessary accounts and isolate affected systems from untrusted users.
- Consultation16.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $24,704.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-2339 — 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-2004-2339 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