CVE-2010-2252
What it is
GNU Wget 1.12 and earlier uses a server-provided filename instead of the original URL to determine the destination filename of a download, which allows remote servers to create or overwrite arbitrary files via a 3xx redirect to a URL with a .wgetrc filename followed by a 3xx redirect to a URL with a crafted filename, and possibly execute arbitrary code as a consequence of writing to a dotfile in a home directory.
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited over the network without logging in. Limited direct impact.
- Exploit odds
- 4.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.
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: 4.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 6.8 MEDIUM (CVSS).
- Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 4.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Weakness
- CWE-20 · Improper input validation
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Gnu Wget ≤ 1.12
- Gnu Wget 1.5.3
- Gnu Wget 1.6
- Gnu Wget 1.7
- Gnu Wget 1.7.1
- Gnu Wget 1.8
- Gnu Wget 1.8.1
- Gnu Wget 1.8.2
Attack profile CVSS 2.0 · 6.8
- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Medium
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
Raw vector
AV:N/AC:M/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-2010-2252.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2010-2252. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
References
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00023.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00031.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00032.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00033.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00034.html
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127411372529485&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127412569216380&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127416905831994&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127422615924593&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127427572721591&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127432968701342&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127441275821210&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127611288927500&w=2
- http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0151.html
- http://www.ocert.org/advisories/ocert-2010-001.html
- http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/65722
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591580
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602797
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00023.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00031.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00032.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00033.html
- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-wget/2010-05/msg00034.html
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127411372529485&w=2
- http://marc.info/?l=oss-security&m=127412569216380&w=2