CVE-2005-2738
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 · uneditedJava 1.4.2 before 1.4.2 Release 2 on Apple Mac OS X does not prevent multiple programs from opening the same port as a Java ServerSocket, which allows local users to operate a Java program that intercepts network data intended for the ServerSocket of a different Java program.
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 confidenceJava 1.4.2 on Apple Mac OS X before Release 2 allowed multiple Java programs to bind to the same ServerSocket port. This enabled a local attacker to start their own Java program on a port already in use by another Java application, intercepting network traffic intended for the original program.
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= 1.4.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Java versionRun 'java -version' in a terminal and note the version string (e.g., java version "1.4.2")Affected if Version shows exactly 1.4.2
-
Confirm Java vendor is SunCheck the full version output to confirm it is Sun Java rather than another implementationAffected if Output shows Sun Microsystems or similar Sun vendor information alongside version 1.4.2
-
Determine the specific Java releaseRun 'java -fullversion' if available, or check the JRE/JDK build details from the version output to identify if it is Release 2 or laterAffected if Version is 1.4.2 but does not indicate Release 2 or a later update (e.g., _02 or higher)
-
Verify operating system is Mac OS XRun 'uname -a' or check system profiler to confirm the OS is Apple Mac OS XAffected if System is running Mac OS X (any version before the fix was integrated)
-
Test ServerSocket port reuse behaviorWrite a simple test: start one Java program binding a ServerSocket on a port, then attempt a second Java program to bind the same port - if it succeeds, the vulnerability is presentAffected if Second Java program successfully binds to a port already in use by another Java ServerSocket, indicating SO_REUSEADDR allows port hijacking
A system is affected if Sun Java version 1.4.2 (specifically before Release 2) is installed on Mac OS X and allows multiple Java programs to bind to the same ServerSocket port.
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 Java to version 1.4.2 Release 2 or later on affected Mac OS X systems to enforce proper port-binding exclusivity and prevent socket hijacking.
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2738 — 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-2005-2738 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