CVE-2005-2889
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 · uneditedCheck Point NGX R60 does not properly verify packets against the predefined service group "CIFS" rule, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended restrictions.
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 confidenceCheck Point NGX R60 contains a security flaw in its packet verification logic for the predefined CIFS (Common Internet File System) service group rule, allowing remote attackers to bypass intended firewall restrictions and access protected resources.
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= r60CVSS 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 installed Check Point product versionRun 'cpinfo -y all' or check the installed packages via 'ls -la /opt/CPsuite-R60/' to confirm the exact version and build number of Check Point NGX R60Affected if The installed version is Checkpoint Connectra Ngx r60 (any build)
-
Locate the CIFS service group definitionExamine the firewall policy rules using Check Point SmartDashboard or export the policy via 'cp_export' to view the rulebase. Look for a service group named 'CIFS' or containing CIFS-related services (ports 139, 445)Affected if A predefined CIFS service group rule exists in the active firewall policy
-
Verify the CIFS rule action and source/destinationIn the policy rulebase, inspect the specific rule using the CIFS service group. Check if the rule allows traffic and note its position in the rulebase orderAffected if The CIFS service group rule is present and configured to allow traffic
-
Confirm the rule is active and installedCheck the installed policy on the gateway using 'cpstat -f policy fw' or review the 'fw stat' output to verify which policy is currently loadedAffected if A policy containing the CIFS rule is currently active on the firewall gateway
A user is affected if they are running Checkpoint Connectra Ngx r60 with an active firewall policy that includes the predefined CIFS service group rule, as the packet verification flaw allows traffic to bypass this rule's restrictions.
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 vendor patch for Check Point NGX R60 or upgrade to a supported version that addresses this rule bypass vulnerability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2889 — 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-2005-2889 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