CVE-2007-1993
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the pfs_mountd.rpc RPC daemon in the Portable File System (PFS) in HP-UX B.11.00, B.11.11, and B.11.23 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending "a call to procedure 5, followed by a crafted payload to procedure 2."
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 confidenceBuffer overflow in the pfs_mountd.rpc RPC daemon in HP-UX Portable File System (PFS) allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending a call to procedure 5 followed by a crafted payload to procedure 2. This is a stack-based buffer overflow in an RPC service running on HP-UX B.11.00, B.11.11, and B.11.23.
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= b.11.00= b.11.11= b.11.23CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 HP-UX versionRun 'uname -a' or 'swlist -l product | grep HP-UX' to determine the exact HP-UX release versionAffected if The version is B.11.00, B.11.11, or B.11.23
-
Verify PFS software is installedCheck if the HP-UX Portable File System (PFS) software product is installed by running 'swlist -l product | grep -i pfs' or reviewing installed software bundlesAffected if PFS is installed on the system
-
Confirm pfs_mountd.rpc service is runningCheck for the pfs_mountd.rpc daemon process using 'ps -ef | grep pfs_mountd' or by querying RPC services with 'rpcinfo -p' for program number 100069 (or the pfs_mountd service)Affected if The pfs_mountd.rpc daemon is actively running and registered as an RPC service
A system is affected if it is running HP-UX B.11.00, B.11.11, or B.11.23 with the PFS software installed and the pfs_mountd.rpc daemon actively running and exposed to the network.
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 HP patches for this vulnerability or, if PFS is not required, disable the pfs_mountd.rpc service entirely. Network segmentation can limit exposure since this is a network-exploitable flaw.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1993 — 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-2007-1993 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