CVE-2005-1859
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 · uneditedUnknown vulnerability in arshell in the Array Service (arrayd) for SGI ProPack 3 with SP 5 and 6, and SGI ProPack 4, allows local users to execute arbitrary shells as root on other hosts in the cluster or array.
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 confidenceVulnerability in arshell (Array Service shell) in SGI ProPack's arrayd service allows local users to execute arbitrary root shells on other hosts within the cluster, enabling lateral movement from a single compromised node to root access across all array nodes.
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= 3.0= 4.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify SGI ProPack versionRun 'uname -a' or check /etc/os-release for SGI ProPack distribution info. Also check 'swlist' if available on IRIX/SGI systems.Affected if Version equals 3.0 or 4.0 specifically, as only these exact versions are affected.
-
Verify arrayd service presenceCheck if the arrayd service is installed: look for 'arrayd' in running processes ('ps aux | grep arrayd') or check for its binary in standard service locations.Affected if arrayd service is running or installed on the system.
-
Locate and inspect arshell binaryFind the arshell binary: search using 'find / -name arshell 2>/dev/null' or check common SGI service binary paths. Check file ownership and permissions.Affected if arshell binary exists and is owned by root with setuid permissions, or writable by non-root users.
-
Check arrayd configurationExamine arrayd configuration files for settings that control remote command execution or authentication. Look in /etc/arrayd.conf or similar config paths if they exist.Affected if arrayd is configured to allow unauthenticated or weakly-authenticated remote command execution from local user context.
-
Verify cluster membership configurationCheck if this node is part of a cluster configuration. Look for cluster membership files, /etc/cluster.conf, or arrayd cluster node lists.Affected if System is configured as a cluster node with other hosts listed in the arrayd configuration.
You are affected if running SGI ProPack 3.0 or 4.0 with the arrayd service enabled and the arshell binary accessible to local users, as the vulnerability enables lateral movement to root on other cluster nodes.
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 dataRestrict local user access to the arrayd service, implement network segmentation for cluster communications, or disable arrayd if not required; apply vendor patches for SGI ProPack if available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1859 — 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-2005-1859 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