CVE-2005-1040
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 · uneditedMultiple unknown vulnerabilities in netapplet in Novell Linux Desktop 9 allow local users to gain root privileges, related to "User input [being] passed to network scripts without verification."
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 · moderate confidencenetapplet in Novell Linux Desktop 9 contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability where untrusted user input is passed to network scripts without proper validation, allowing local users to gain root privileges.
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= 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
- 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.
-
Check if netapplet is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i netapplet' or 'dpkg -l | grep -i netapplet' to list installed netapplet packagesAffected if netapplet package is found on the system
-
Verify the installed versionRun 'rpm -qi netapplet' or 'dpkg -s netapplet' to display package version informationAffected if version equals 9 (Novell Linux Desktop 9)
-
Locate the netapplet binaryRun 'which netapplet' or 'find / -name netapplet -type f 2>/dev/null' to find the executable pathAffected if binary exists in a system directory (such as /usr/bin or /usr/sbin)
-
Check binary permissions and ownershipRun 'ls -la /path/to/netapplet' to view owner, group, and permission bits (look for 's' in owner execute for setuid)Affected if binary is owned by root AND has setuid bit set (shows 's' in permissions like '-rwSr-sr-x root root')
-
Check for network script invocationExamine netapplet binary with 'strings /path/to/netapplet | grep -E "(system|popen|exec|sh -c)"' to find calls that execute shell commandsAffected if binary contains calls that pass user-controlled input to shell execution functions
System is affected if netapplet version 9 is installed with root ownership and setuid permissions, allowing untrusted user input to reach shell execution functions.
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 dataIf netapplet is still present, restrict execution permissions to root only or remove the package entirely; for legacy systems without vendor patches, consider compensating controls such as application removal or strict file permissions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1040 — 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-2005-1040 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