CVE-2008-4311
What it is
The default configuration of system.conf in D-Bus (aka DBus) before 1.2.6 omits the send_type attribute in certain rules, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions by (1) sending messages, related to send_requested_reply; and possibly (2) receiving messages, related to receive_requested_reply.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited locally on the machine without logging in. Limited direct impact.
- Exploit odds
- 0.4% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 0.4% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 4.6 MEDIUM (CVSS).
- Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.4% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Weakness
- CWE-16
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Freedesktop Dbus ≤ 1.2.4
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.1
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.2
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.3
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.4
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.5
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.6
- Freedesktop Dbus 0.7
Attack profile CVSS 2.0 · 4.6
- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
Raw vector
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2008-4311.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2008-4311. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
Fix and advisories
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33047
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33055
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33047
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33055
References
- http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503532
- http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=206797
- http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2008-December/010702.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-03/msg00003.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-04/msg00003.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-04/msg00010.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2012-10/msg00094.html
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33047
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33055
- http://secunia.com/advisories/34360
- http://secunia.com/advisories/34642
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/32674
- http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2008/3355
- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18229
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474895
- https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/47138
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2008-December/msg00436.html
- http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503532
- http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=206797
- http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2008-December/010702.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-03/msg00003.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-04/msg00003.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2009-04/msg00010.html
- http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-updates/2012-10/msg00094.html
- http://secunia.com/advisories/33047