CVE-2005-0816
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in newgrp in Solaris 7 through 9 allows local users to gain root privileges.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the newgrp command on Solaris 7, 8, and 9 allows local unprivileged users to execute arbitrary code with root privileges by overflowing a buffer in the newgrp binary.
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= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0= 5.7= 5.8CVSS 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 Solaris versionRun 'uname -r' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the installed Solaris version. Look for 5.7, 5.8, or 5.9 (SunOS) or Solaris 7, 8, or 9.Affected if The system runs Solaris 7, 8, or 9 (or SunOS 5.7, 5.8, or 5.9)
-
Locate the newgrp binaryRun 'which newgrp' or 'find /usr/bin -name newgrp' to find the newgrp binary location.Affected if The newgrp command exists on the system
-
Verify newgrp binary permissionsRun 'ls -la /usr/bin/newgrp' or the equivalent path found above to check permissions. Specifically check if the file is owned by root and has the setuid bit set.Affected if newgrp is setuid root and executable by unprivileged users (typical configuration, which makes exploitation possible)
-
Check for known vulnerable versionCompare the installed Solaris version against the affected ranges: Solaris 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 or SunOS 5.7, 5.8. If possible, check the patch level with 'showrev -p'.Affected if The system is Solaris 7, 8, or 9 without the relevant security patch applied
-
Inspect for signs of compromiseCheck for unexpected files in /tmp, unusual processes, or core dumps related to newgrp. Review system logs for newgrp invocations from unprivileged accounts.Affected if Suspicious files, processes, or log entries related to newgrp exploitation are found
A user is affected if they are running Solaris 7, 8, or 9 (or SunOS 5.7, 5.8) with the newgrp binary accessible to unprivileged users and without the Oracle/Sun security patch applied.
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 relevant Solaris patch from Oracle (or Sun) for this vulnerability, or upgrade to a patched version of Solaris. Until patches are applied, limit local user access to the newgrp command and monitor for exploitation attempts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,592.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-0816 — 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-2005-0816 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