CVE-1999-0616: Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is sol
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is solely about a configuration that does not directly introduce security vulnerabilities, so it is more appropriate to cover under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE). Notes: the former description is: "The TFTP service is running.
AI Analysis
Technical Summary
CVE-1999-0616 is a rejected vulnerability candidate originally describing the presence of the TFTP (Trivial File Transfer Protocol) service running on a system. The candidate was rejected because it does not represent a direct security vulnerability but rather a configuration state. The presence of TFTP service itself is not inherently a vulnerability; however, it is often considered a security risk due to the protocol's lack of authentication and encryption, which can potentially expose sensitive files or allow unauthorized file transfers if improperly configured. The National Vulnerability Database (NVD) notes that this candidate is more appropriately covered under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE) rather than as a vulnerability. No specific affected versions, patches, or known exploits are associated with this candidate. The original concern was that running TFTP service might expose systems to risk, but this depends heavily on the environment and configuration rather than a flaw in the protocol or software itself.
Potential Impact
For European organizations, the impact of this issue is primarily related to the operational security posture rather than a direct exploit. If TFTP services are running without proper controls, attackers could potentially access or transfer files without authentication, leading to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information or unauthorized modification of files. This could affect confidentiality and integrity but would require the attacker to have network access to the TFTP service. The risk is higher in environments where TFTP is used for network device configuration or firmware updates, common in telecommunications and industrial control systems. However, since this is a configuration issue rather than a software vulnerability, the impact varies widely depending on the organization's network segmentation, monitoring, and access controls.
Mitigation Recommendations
European organizations should audit their networks to identify any active TFTP services and evaluate their necessity. If TFTP is required, it should be restricted to trusted networks and hosts using firewall rules and access control lists. Network segmentation should isolate TFTP servers from general user networks. Additionally, organizations should consider replacing TFTP with more secure file transfer protocols such as SFTP or SCP where possible. Monitoring and logging of TFTP traffic should be enabled to detect unauthorized access attempts. Since no patches are available or needed, the focus should be on configuration management and network security best practices to mitigate risks associated with TFTP usage.
Affected Countries
Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Poland
CVE-1999-0616: Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is sol
Description
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is solely about a configuration that does not directly introduce security vulnerabilities, so it is more appropriate to cover under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE). Notes: the former description is: "The TFTP service is running.
AI-Powered Analysis
Technical Analysis
CVE-1999-0616 is a rejected vulnerability candidate originally describing the presence of the TFTP (Trivial File Transfer Protocol) service running on a system. The candidate was rejected because it does not represent a direct security vulnerability but rather a configuration state. The presence of TFTP service itself is not inherently a vulnerability; however, it is often considered a security risk due to the protocol's lack of authentication and encryption, which can potentially expose sensitive files or allow unauthorized file transfers if improperly configured. The National Vulnerability Database (NVD) notes that this candidate is more appropriately covered under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE) rather than as a vulnerability. No specific affected versions, patches, or known exploits are associated with this candidate. The original concern was that running TFTP service might expose systems to risk, but this depends heavily on the environment and configuration rather than a flaw in the protocol or software itself.
Potential Impact
For European organizations, the impact of this issue is primarily related to the operational security posture rather than a direct exploit. If TFTP services are running without proper controls, attackers could potentially access or transfer files without authentication, leading to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information or unauthorized modification of files. This could affect confidentiality and integrity but would require the attacker to have network access to the TFTP service. The risk is higher in environments where TFTP is used for network device configuration or firmware updates, common in telecommunications and industrial control systems. However, since this is a configuration issue rather than a software vulnerability, the impact varies widely depending on the organization's network segmentation, monitoring, and access controls.
Mitigation Recommendations
European organizations should audit their networks to identify any active TFTP services and evaluate their necessity. If TFTP is required, it should be restricted to trusted networks and hosts using firewall rules and access control lists. Network segmentation should isolate TFTP servers from general user networks. Additionally, organizations should consider replacing TFTP with more secure file transfer protocols such as SFTP or SCP where possible. Monitoring and logging of TFTP traffic should be enabled to detect unauthorized access attempts. Since no patches are available or needed, the focus should be on configuration management and network security best practices to mitigate risks associated with TFTP usage.
Affected Countries
Threat ID: 682ca32bb6fd31d6ed7decb7
Added to database: 5/20/2025, 3:43:39 PM
Last enriched: 7/1/2025, 8:54:56 PM
Last updated: 2/7/2026, 6:34:03 AM
Views: 36
Community Reviews
0 reviewsCrowdsource mitigation strategies, share intel context, and vote on the most helpful responses. Sign in to add your voice and help keep defenders ahead.
Want to contribute mitigation steps or threat intel context? Sign in or create an account to join the community discussion.
Related Threats
CVE-2025-15267: CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in boldthemes Bold Page Builder
MediumCVE-2025-13463: CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in boldthemes Bold Page Builder
MediumCVE-2025-12803: CWE-80 Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS) in boldthemes Bold Page Builder
MediumCVE-2025-12159: CWE-79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in boldthemes Bold Page Builder
MediumCVE-2026-2075: Improper Access Controls in yeqifu warehouse
MediumActions
Updates to AI analysis require Pro Console access. Upgrade inside Console → Billing.
External Links
Need more coverage?
Upgrade to Pro Console in Console -> Billing for AI refresh and higher limits.
For incident response and remediation, OffSeq services can help resolve threats faster.