CVE-2005-1831
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 · uneditedSudo 1.6.8p7 on SuSE Linux 9.3, and possibly other Linux distributions, allows local users to gain privileges by using sudo to call su, then entering a blank password and hitting CTRL-C. NOTE: SuSE and multiple third-party researchers have not been able to replicate this issue, stating "Sudo catches SIGINT and returns an empty string for the password so I don't see how this could happen unless the user's actual password was empty.
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 confidenceSudo 1.6.8p7 on SuSE Linux 9.3 allegedly allows local users to escalate privileges by using sudo to invoke su, entering a blank password, then pressing CTRL-C to interrupt the password prompt. However, SuSE and third-party researchers were unable to reproduce this issue, noting that sudo catches SIGINT and returns an empty password string, making exploitation unclear unless the user's password is already empty.
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= 1.6.8p7CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Identify installed sudo versionRun `sudo --version` or check the package manager (e.g., `rpm -q sudo` for RPM-based systems, `dpkg -l sudo` for Debian-based) to determine the exact sudo versionAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.6.8p7 (Todd Miller Sudo)
-
Check if user has sudo permission to run suRun `sudo -l` as the target user to list allowed commands, or inspect /etc/sudoers and any files in /etc/sudoers.d/ for rules granting access to the su commandAffected if The user has sudo privileges configured to execute the su binary
-
Verify password configuration for the userCheck if the user has an empty password set (root or target account) by examining /etc/shadow (requires root) or testing sudo behavior with blank password entryAffected if The target account (typically root) has an empty password, making exploitation theoretically possible if the flaw exists
The environment is affected only if sudo version 1.6.8p7 is installed AND the user has sudo permissions to run su AND a target account has an empty password, though exploitation was never confirmed by SuSE or researchers
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 sudo to a patched version beyond 1.6.8p7, or apply vendor-specific patches. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, restrict sudo access to trusted users and monitor for suspicious su invocations.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1831 — 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-2005-1831 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