CVE-2004-1054
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 · uneditedUntrusted execution path vulnerability in invscout in IBM AIX 5.1.0, 5.2.0, and 5.3.0 allows local users to gain privileges by modifying the PATH environment variable to point to a malicious "uname" program, which is executed from lsvpd after lsvpd has been invoked by invscout.
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 confidenceThe invscout utility in IBM AIX 5.1.0-5.3.0 has an untrusted execution path vulnerability where it calls lsvpd, which in turn executes the 'uname' command without using an absolute path. A local attacker can modify their PATH environment variable to point to a malicious 'uname' executable, which will be executed with elevated privileges when invscout runs lsvpd, enabling local privilege escalation.
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= 5.1= 5.1l= 5.2= 5.2.2= 5.2_l= 5.3= 5.3_lCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Verify AIX version is within affected rangeRun 'oslevel -r' or 'uname -a' to display the installed AIX versionAffected if The version is 5.1.0, 5.1L, 5.2, 5.2.2, 5.2_L, 5.3, or 5.3_L (any version from 5.1 through 5.3)
-
Confirm invscout utility is installedRun 'which invscout' or check if /usr/lpp/invscout/invscout binary existsAffected if The invscout binary exists on the system
-
Confirm lsvpd utility is installedRun 'which lsvpd' or check if /usr/sbin/lsvpd binary existsAffected if The lsvpd binary exists on the system
-
Inspect PATH environment variable for writable directoriesRun 'echo $PATH' and review each directory for world/group writable permissions using 'ls -la' on each PATH componentAffected if PATH contains directories that are writable by non-root users (especially user home directories or temporary directories)
-
Verify if lsvpd uses absolute path for unameRun 'strings /usr/sbin/lsvpd | grep -i uname' to inspect binary strings, or use 'dump -Hv /usr/sbin/lsvpd' to analyze the binaryAffected if lsvpd calls 'uname' without an absolute path such as /usr/bin/uname
The system is vulnerable if it runs a affected AIX version (5.1-5.3), has both invscout and lsvpd installed, and has a PATH environment variable containing writable directories that could allow a local attacker to inject a malicious uname executable.
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 dataApply IBM's official patch for this vulnerability. As a workaround, ensure the PATH environment variable does not include user-writable directories and verify that system binaries are called using absolute paths.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-1054 — 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-2004-1054 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