CVE-2007-5922
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 · uneditedThe modules/mdop.m in the Cypress 1.0k script for BitchX, as downloaded from a distribution site in November 2007, contains an externally introduced backdoor that e-mails sensitive information (hostnames, usernames, and shell history) to a fixed address.
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 confidenceThe Cypress 1.0k script for the BitchX IRC client, as distributed in November 2007, contained a malicious backdoor that was introduced through the distribution site. This backdoor actively exfiltrated sensitive system information including hostnames, usernames, and shell history to a fixed remote email address.
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 versions= 1.0kCVSS 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.
-
Locate BitchX IRC client installationSearch common installation directories for the BitchX binary or search for 'bitchx' in the system path using 'which bitchx' or 'find / -name bitchx -type f 2>/dev/null'Affected if BitchX is installed on the system
-
Find Cypress script fileSearch for the Cypress script within BitchX's script directories. Common locations include ~/.bitchx/scripts/ or /usr/share/bitchx/scripts/. Use 'find ~ -name "Cypress*" -o -name "cypress*"' to locate itAffected if The Cypress script file exists in BitchX directories
-
Verify Cypress script versionOpen the Cypress script file and search for a version identifier near the top of the file using 'head -50 [script_path]' or 'grep -i version [script_path]'Affected if The script version is exactly 1.0k (version 1.0k, not other versions)
-
Inspect script for suspicious network behaviorExamine the script content for functions that send email, HTTP requests, or network connections. Look for commands like 'sendmail', 'curl', 'wget', or socket operations using 'grep -E "(sendmail|curl|wget|socket|connect)" [script_path]'Affected if The script contains code that sends data to external addresses or email destinations
A system is affected if the Cypress script version 1.0k is present and contains code that exfiltrates system information to remote destinations, indicating the backdoor is active.
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 dataOrganizations should identify and remove any instances of the Cypress 1.0k BitchX script from affected systems, review historical network traffic for connections to the exfiltration endpoint, and treat any systems that ran this script as potentially compromised.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-5922 — 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-2007-5922 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