Skip to main content

CVE-1999-0619: Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: this candidate is sol

Medium
VulnerabilityCVE-1999-0619cve-1999-0619
Published: Fri Jan 01 1999 (01/01/1999, 05:00:00 UTC)
Source: NVD

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 Telnet service is running.

AI-Powered Analysis

AILast updated: 07/01/2025, 20:54:38 UTC

Technical Analysis

CVE-1999-0619 is a rejected vulnerability candidate that originally referred to the presence of the Telnet service running on a system. The candidate was rejected because it does not represent a direct security vulnerability but rather a configuration state. The Telnet service itself is known to be insecure due to its lack of encryption, transmitting data including credentials in plaintext, which can be intercepted by attackers. However, this CVE candidate was deemed inappropriate for the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) list and instead is more suitably addressed under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE), which catalogs configuration issues rather than software flaws. There are no affected versions or patches associated with this entry, and no known exploits in the wild. The original concern was that running Telnet services could expose systems to interception and unauthorized access, but this is a configuration risk rather than a software vulnerability. Therefore, this entry serves as a reminder to avoid running insecure services like Telnet rather than identifying a specific exploitable flaw.

Potential Impact

For European organizations, the impact of running Telnet services is primarily related to the risk of credential interception and unauthorized access due to the lack of encryption in Telnet communications. If Telnet is enabled on critical systems, attackers with network access could capture sensitive information or gain unauthorized control. This risk is heightened in environments where network segmentation or encryption is not enforced. However, since this is a configuration issue rather than a software vulnerability, the impact depends on the organization's security posture and network architecture. European organizations that still rely on legacy systems or have not migrated to secure alternatives like SSH may be more vulnerable. The presence of Telnet could lead to breaches of confidentiality and potentially integrity and availability if attackers leverage captured credentials to escalate privileges or disrupt services.

Mitigation Recommendations

European organizations should ensure that Telnet services are disabled on all systems unless absolutely necessary. Where remote command-line access is required, secure alternatives such as SSH (Secure Shell) should be deployed and enforced. Network monitoring should be implemented to detect any use of Telnet traffic, and network segmentation should be applied to limit exposure of legacy systems. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular configuration audits using tools that check for insecure services like Telnet and remediate them promptly. For legacy systems that require Telnet, consider deploying VPNs or encrypted tunnels to protect the traffic. Employee training and awareness programs should emphasize the risks of using insecure protocols and encourage adherence to secure configuration standards.

Need more detailed analysis?Get Pro

Threat ID: 682ca32bb6fd31d6ed7decbd

Added to database: 5/20/2025, 3:43:39 PM

Last enriched: 7/1/2025, 8:54:38 PM

Last updated: 8/12/2025, 12:42:47 PM

Views: 14

Actions

PRO

Updates to AI analysis are available only with a Pro account. Contact root@offseq.com for access.

Please log in to the Console to use AI analysis features.

Need enhanced features?

Contact root@offseq.com for Pro access with improved analysis and higher rate limits.

Latest Threats