CVE-2005-0979
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 · uneditedMultiple buffer overflows in RUMBA 7.3 and earlier allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via crafted values in a profile file, as demonstrated using a long SysName field.
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 RUMBA 7.3 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via crafted profile files containing overly long SysName field values.
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= 7.3= 7.4CVSS 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 if Rumba is installedCheck for Netmanage Rumba installation in program directories or use system inventory tools to list installed softwareAffected if Rumba terminal emulator software is present on the system
-
Determine installed Rumba versionLocate the Rumba executable or check system registry for version information, then compare against affected versions 7.3 and earlierAffected if The installed version is 7.3 or any earlier version
-
Locate profile configuration filesSearch for Rumba profile files (.rwp, .rsp, or similar configuration files) in user directories, application data folders, or configured profile pathsAffected if Custom profile files are in use or can be loaded by the application
-
Inspect SysName field in profile filesOpen profile files in a text editor and examine the SysName or SystemName field values for unusually long character stringsAffected if Profile files contain SysName field values exceeding normal length (the buffer overflow trigger condition)
A system is affected if Netmanage Rumba version 7.3 or earlier is installed and loads profile files with overly long SysName field values.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of RUMBA if available; otherwise, implement input validation on profile files and restrict access to untrusted profile sources.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-0979 — 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-2005-0979 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