Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2005-1916
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 · uneditedlinki.py in ekg 2005-06-05 and earlier allows local users to overwrite or create arbitrary files via a symlink attack on temporary files.
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 confidencelinki.py in ekg versions 2005-06-05 and earlier contains a symlink attack vulnerability in its temporary file handling. Local users can exploit insecure temporary file creation (likely using predictable file paths without proper checks) to overwrite or create arbitrary files on the system by creating malicious symlinks before the application creates its temporary 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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 3.1<= 2005-06-05CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Locate the ekg installationSearch for the ekg binary or package on the system using 'which ekg', 'dpkg -l | grep ekg', or 'rpm -qa | grep ekg' depending on the Linux distributionAffected if ekg is not found on the system, then the vulnerability does not apply
-
Identify the installed ekg versionRun 'ekg --version' or check the package manager output from the previous step to determine the exact version numberAffected if the version is 2005-06-05 or earlier, or if the version cannot be determined but ekg is installed
-
Find the linki.py fileSearch for linki.py in the ekg installation directory, typically in /usr/share/ekg/, /usr/lib/ekg/, or the current working directory when running ekgAffected if linki.py exists and is part of the ekg installation, proceed to the next check
-
Inspect temporary file handling in linki.pyExamine the linki.py source code for patterns of insecure temporary file creation such as 'open tempfile', 'os.tempnam', 'os.tmpnam', or direct file creation without using tempfile moduleAffected if the code uses predictable temporary file paths or lacks secure temporary file creation using tempfile.mkstemp() or equivalent
A system is affected if ekg version 2005-06-05 or earlier is installed and the linki.py file uses insecure temporary file handling that could allow symlink-based file overwrite attacks.
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 dataReplace insecure temporary file creation with secure methods such as Python's tempfile.mkstemp() or tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(), which create files with secure permissions and avoid predictable paths. Ensure the application verifies that temporary files are created in safe directories.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-1916 — 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-2005-1916 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