dbcve.org
OprofileApplication · Maynard Johnson

CVE-2006-0576

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v2.0 Published 2006-02-08
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.9.1 or later.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Untrusted search path vulnerability in opcontrol in OProfile 0.9.1 and earlier allows local users to execute arbitrary commands via a modified PATH that references malicious (1) which or (2) dirname programs. NOTE: while opcontrol normally is not run setuid, a common configuration suggests accessing opcontrol using sudo. In such a context, this is a vulnerability.

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 confidence

This is a PATH manipulation vulnerability in opcontrol (OProfile's control utility). The script invokes system commands like `which` and `dirname` without absolute paths, trusting the user's PATH environment variable. A local attacker can place malicious `which` or `dirname` executables in a directory that appears earlier in PATH, causing arbitrary command execution when opcontrol runs—particularly exploitable when sudo is used to invoke opcontrol.

MitigationFix the opcontrol script to use absolute paths for all external commands (e.g., `/usr/bin/which`, `/usr/bin/dirname`) or ensure the PATH environment variable is sanitized/reset before execution, especially when invoked via sudo.

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
OprofileApplication
Affected:<= 0.9.1= 0.1= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.5.1= 0.5.2= 0.5.3= 0.5.4= 0.6= 0.6.1

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check if OProfile is installed
    Run 'rpm -q oprofile' (RHEL/CentOS) or 'dpkg -l oprofile' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'which opcontrol' to locate the opcontrol binary
    Affected if OProfile is not installed or opcontrol is not found in the system
  2. Determine installed OProfile version
    Run 'opcontrol --version' or check the package manager output from step 1 to identify the exact version number
    Affected if Version is 0.9.1 or lower, or matches any of: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5.1, 0.5.2, 0.5.3, 0.5.4, 0.6, 0.6.1
  3. Locate the opcontrol script
    Find the opcontrol script location using 'which opcontrol' or search in common paths like /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin/
    Affected if The opcontrol script exists on the system
  4. Inspect opcontrol for absolute path usage
    Open the opcontrol script and search for commands like 'which' and 'dirname' - check if they are called with absolute paths (e.g., /usr/bin/which) or without paths (just 'which')
    Affected if The script invokes 'which', 'dirname', or other external commands WITHOUT absolute paths (e.g., uses 'which' instead of '/usr/bin/which')
  5. Check if opcontrol is invoked with sudo
    Review system documentation, sudoers files, or common operational practices to determine if opcontrol is typically run with elevated privileges
    Affected if Users run opcontrol via sudo, increasing the impact of PATH manipulation

Your environment is affected if OProfile is installed with a version <= 0.9.1 (or matching the specific affected versions listed) AND the opcontrol script uses relative paths for external commands like 'which' or 'dirname', especially when invoked with sudo.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 0.9.1
Interim mitigation

Fix the opcontrol script to use absolute paths for all external commands (e.g., `/usr/bin/which`, `/usr/bin/dirname`) or ensure the PATH environment variable is sanitized/reset before execution, especially when invoked via sudo.

Fix this in Oprofile Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-0576 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2006-0576 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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