CVE-2005-1516
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 · uneditedDList (dlist.exe) in DMail 3.1a allows remote attackers to bypass authentication, read log files, and shutdown the system via a sendlog command with an incorrect password hash, which is not properly handled by the _cmd_sendlog function.
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 confidenceThe _cmd_sendlog function in DList (dlist.exe) of DMail 3.1a does not properly validate password hashes, allowing remote attackers to bypass authentication and execute privileged commands including reading arbitrary log files and shutting down the system.
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= 3.1aCVSS 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.
-
Verify DMail installation and versionCheck installed programs or DMail version information to confirm if version 3.1a is installedAffected if DMail version 3.1a is installed and the DList component is present
-
Identify if DList service is runningCheck running processes for dlist.exe or list the DMail services to see if DList is activeAffected if The dlist.exe process or DList service is running on the system
-
Confirm network exposure of DList portCheck listening network ports and which IP addresses the DList service is bound to (typically port 6112 or as configured)Affected if DList is listening on a network-accessible IP address rather than localhost only
-
Check for privileged command accessAttempt to connect to the DList service using the vulnerability to test if unauthenticated privileged commands (log read, system shutdown) are acceptedAffected if The DList service accepts and executes privileged commands without valid password authentication
The system is affected if DMail version 3.1a is installed with the DList (dlist.exe) component running and accessible over the network, allowing unauthenticated privileged command execution.
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 DMail to a patched version or disable the DList service if unused; restrict network access to the service until patched.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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-2005-1516 — 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-2005-1516 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