Ubuntu LinuxOperating system · Ubuntu
CVE-2005-0080
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 · uneditedThe 55_options_traceback.dpatch patch for mailman 2.1.5 in Ubuntu 4.10 displays a different error message depending on whether the e-mail address is subscribed to a private list, which allows remote attackers to determine the list membership for a given e-mail address.
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 confidenceIn Mailman 2.1.5, the 55_options_traceback.dpatch patch introduces a flaw where error messages differ based on whether an e-mail address is subscribed to a private mailing list. An attacker can determine list membership by observing which error message is returned, enabling membership enumeration against private lists.
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
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 4.10= 2.1.5CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm Mailman installationRun 'mailman --version' or check for Mailman via package manager (dpkg -l | grep mailman on Debian/Ubuntu)Affected if Mailman is installed and version is 2.1.5 or the specific Ubuntu 4.10 release
-
Check Mailman version numberExecute 'mailman --version' or inspect the version file in /var/lib/mailman or /usr/lib/mailman directoryAffected if Version equals 2.1.5 exactly or falls within the 2.1.5 release line
-
Identify private mailing listsList all mailing lists with 'mailman lists' and review each list's privacy settings in the admin interface or list config (check 'subscribe_policy' and 'member_roster_privacy' settings)Affected if One or more mailing lists are configured as private (non-public)
-
Verify the vulnerable patch stateCheck if the 55_options_traceback.dpatch was applied by inspecting Mailman source patches directory or looking for the traceback handling code in Mailman/Cgi/options.pyAffected if The patch 55_options_traceback.dpatch was applied to Mailman source code (this patch causes different error messages for subscribed vs unsubscribed addresses)
A user is affected if they run Mailman version 2.1.5 (or Ubuntu 4.10) with at least one private mailing list, where the 55_options_traceback.dpatch patch was applied, allowing membership enumeration through differing error messages.
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 dataApply the corrected patch or configure Mailman to return uniform error messages regardless of subscription status, preventing information disclosure about private list membership.
Fix this in Ubuntu Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-0080 — 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-2005-0080 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