Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
This old CVE says a Red Hat installation created its initial password using DES-based crypt() hashing instead of MD5. In business terms, the concern is weaker protection for that initial password. The provided sources do not identify affected versions, business impact, or a confirmed fix.
Executive priority
Treat as a legacy hygiene issue unless evidence shows active affected systems. Prioritize inventory, password rotation, and unsupported-system retirement over emergency response.
Technical view
The record describes a Red Hat installation condition where the initial password was hashed with DES via crypt() instead of MD5. The bundle provides no CVSS score, CWE, affected version list, exploit detail, or vendor remediation path.
Likely exposure
Likely limited to legacy Red Hat installations that retained the affected initial password state. Exposure cannot be scoped from the bundle because affected products and versions are listed as n/a.
Exploitation context
No KEV entry is present, and the provided sources do not claim active exploitation. The bundle does not provide enough evidence to assess real-world exploitability or prevalence.
Researcher notes
The source bundle is sparse. It identifies the DES crypt() versus MD5 issue but omits affected releases, CVSS, CWE, patch status, and reproduction details. Avoid expanding scope beyond Red Hat installation behavior described in the record.
Mitigation direction
- Check Red Hat or distribution-specific guidance for affected releases and remediation.
- Rotate any initial passwords from legacy Red Hat installations.
- Ensure password hashes use approved modern formats in current builds.
- Retire or isolate unsupported legacy Red Hat systems.
Validation and detection
- Inventory legacy Red Hat systems and installation dates.
- Confirm whether any default or initial passwords remain in use.
- Review password hash policy against current organizational standards.
- Document affected-version evidence before assigning remediation scope.
Public sources used
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
Credential and access behavior lookup
The CVE wording references authentication or credential exposure, so valid-account and credential-access review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.
Open ATT&CK lookupCVE-2000-0093 mapping review
Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.
Open ATT&CK lookup- Severity
- Unknown
- CVSS
- Not scored
- Known Exploited
- No
- Published
CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
CVSS and timeline data
No CVSS vectors or timeline events were available in the normalized CVE source material.
Source materials
- CVE List V5 sourceCVE List V5
- https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/CVE-2000-0093CVE reference · x_refsource_MISC
Products and packages named in the record
CWE details
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.