CVE-2007-1972
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 · uneditedPatrolAgent.exe in BMC Performance Manager does not require authentication for requests to modify configuration files, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a request on TCP port 3181 for modification of the masterAgentName and masterAgentStartLine SNMP parameters. NOTE: the vendor disputes this vulnerability, stating that it does not exist when the system is properly configured
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 confidencePatrolAgent.exe in BMC Performance Manager lacks authentication requirements for configuration file modifications on TCP port 3181. Attackers can modify masterAgentName and masterAgentStartLine SNMP parameters without credentials, enabling arbitrary code execution. The vendor disputes the finding, claiming the issue only occurs when the system is misconfigured.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 PatrolAgent service statusCheck if the PatrolAgent.exe process is running on the system using task manager or command 'tasklist | findstr PatrolAgent'Affected if PatrolAgent.exe is running and accessible
-
Confirm TCP port 3181 is listeningRun 'netstat -an | findstr 3181' or use a port scanner to verify port 3181 is in LISTENING stateAffected if TCP port 3181 is open and listening on any interface
-
Check network exposure of port 3181Review firewall rules and binding configuration to determine if port 3181 is accessible from untrusted networks or directly to the internetAffected if Port 3181 is bound to 0.0.0.0 or an interface accessible from untrusted networks
-
Inspect PatrolAgent configuration for authenticationExamine the PatrolAgent configuration files and registry settings for security-related parameters, specifically checking if authentication is required for configuration modificationsAffected if Authentication is not required or is disabled for configuration changes, allowing unauthenticated modification of masterAgentName and masterAgentStartLine parameters
The environment is affected if PatrolAgent is running with TCP port 3181 accessible from untrusted networks and configuration modifications are allowed without authentication.
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 dataRestrict network access to TCP port 3181 via firewall rules or network segmentation, and ensure BMC's recommended secure configuration is applied. If not needed, disable the PatrolAgent service.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1972 — 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-2007-1972 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