CVE-2001-1459
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedOpenSSH 2.9 and earlier does not initiate a Pluggable Authentication Module (PAM) session if commands are executed with no pty, which allows local users to bypass resource limits (rlimits) set in pam.d.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceOpenSSH 2.9 and earlier fails to initiate a PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module) session when commands are executed without a pseudo-terminal (pty), allowing local users to bypass resource limits (rlimits) configured in pam.d configuration files.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.1= 2.1.1= 2.2= 2.3= 2.5= 2.5.1= 2.5.2= 2.9CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed OpenSSH versionRun 'sshd -v' or 'ssh -V' or check your package manager for the openssh versionAffected if Version is 2.9 or earlier (2.1, 2.1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, or 2.9)
-
Check if PAM is enabled in sshd_configInspect /etc/ssh/sshd_config for the 'UsePAM' directiveAffected if UsePAM is set to 'yes' and OpenSSH version is in the affected range
-
Identify PAM configuration files with rlimit settingsReview files in /etc/pam.d/ (particularly sshd or common-session) for 'ulimit' or 'rlimit' settingsAffected if PAM configuration contains resource limit (ulimit/rlimit) settings that would be bypassed
-
Audit for non-pty SSH command executionsReview sshd logs and check for 'pty' allocation failures or command executions without pty allocation (look for sessions without 'session opened' PAM messages)Affected if There are log entries showing command execution without proper PAM session initialization
You are affected if you run OpenSSH 2.9 or earlier with PAM enabled (UsePAM yes) and have rlimits configured in pam.d that rely on session initialization for enforcement.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to a patched version of OpenSSH that properly initiates PAM sessions for non-pty command executions, or implement alternative resource limit controls that are not dependent on PAM session initialization.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,064.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2001-1459 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2001-1459 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data