CVE-2005-3642
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 · uneditedIBM Informix Dynamic Database server running on Windows XP with Simple File Sharing enabled, allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and log on to the guest account by supplying an invalid username.
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 confidenceIBM Informix Dynamic Database server running on Windows XP with Simple File Sharing enabled allows remote attackers to bypass authentication by supplying an invalid username, which the system maps to the guest account instead of properly rejecting the authentication attempt.
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= 9.3= 9.40.uc1= 9.40.uc2= 9.40.uc3CVSS 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.
-
Confirm the Windows versionCheck system properties or run 'winver' to verify the operating system is Windows XPAffected if The server is running Windows XP (the vulnerability only affects Windows XP)
-
Identify the Informix server versionUse the 'onstat -' command from the Informix bin directory or check the version in the Informix installation documentation/registry to determine if the version is 9.3, 9.40.uc1, 9.40.uc2, or 9.40.uc3Affected if The installed version matches exactly 9.3, 9.40.uc1, 9.40.uc2, or 9.40.uc3
-
Verify Simple File Sharing statusIn Windows XP, open Folder Options, go to the View tab, and check whether 'Use simple file sharing (Recommended)' is enabled; alternatively check the registry key HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced\SimpleSharingAffected if Simple File Sharing is enabled on the Windows XP system
The environment is affected only if all three conditions are met: Windows XP is the OS, Informix version is exactly 9.3, 9.40.uc1, 9.40.uc2, or 9.40.uc3, and Simple File Sharing is enabled on the system
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 dataDisable Simple File Sharing on the Windows XP system, or migrate the Informix server to a supported Windows version as Windows XP is end-of-life.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-3642 — 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-2005-3642 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