CVE-2005-1339
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 · uneditedlukemftpd in Mac OS X 10.3.9 allows remote authenticated users to escape the chroot environment by logging in with their full name.
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 lukemftpd FTP server in Mac OS X 10.3.9 contains a flaw where authenticated users can escape the chroot jail by using their full name (gecos field) instead of their username during login. This bypasses the intended filesystem isolation, potentially allowing access to the entire host filesystem.
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= 10.3.9= 10.3.9CVSS 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 Mac OS X versionRun 'sw_vers' or check System Profiler to confirm the exact Mac OS X version. Look for build number and exact version string.Affected if The system is not running Mac OS X 10.3.9 (the vulnerability only affects this specific version)
-
Determine if FTP service is enabledCheck if the lukemftpd service is running. On Mac OS X 10.3.9, this can be verified by checking /System/Library/StartupItems/FTP or by attempting to connect to port 21, or by running 'ps aux | grep ftpd'.Affected if FTP service (lukemftpd) is not running or not enabled - the vulnerability requires the FTP server to be active
-
List local user accounts and their gecos fieldsExamine the user database. Use 'niutil -list / /users' or check /etc/master.passwd (if accessible) to view the gecos/full name field for each user account.Affected if The system has user accounts where the full name (gecos field) differs from the username - these accounts could be used to bypass the chroot jail
-
Verify FTP chroot configurationCheck the FTP server configuration for chroot settings. Look in /etc/ftpd or examine the ftpd configuration files used by lukemftpd on Mac OS X 10.3.9.Affected if FTP is configured with chroot jail for users - the vulnerability specifically bypasses this chroot isolation
-
Test FTP login with gecos fieldIf FTP is enabled and users exist with different gecos names, attempt to log in using the full name (gecos) instead of the username to see if the chroot jail is escaped.Affected if Logging in with the gecos field provides access outside the intended chroot directory, exposing the entire filesystem
A user is affected if they are running Mac OS X 10.3.9 with the FTP service (lukemftpd) enabled and have user accounts where the full name (gecos field) differs from the login username.
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 dataMac OS X 10.3.9 is end-of-life and should be retired or isolated. If the system must remain operational, disable the FTP service and use a patched/updated FTP implementation or alternative secure file transfer method.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1339 — 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-2005-1339 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