CVE-2006-1058
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 · uneditedBusyBox 1.1.1 does not use a salt when generating passwords, which makes it easier for local users to guess passwords from a stolen password file using techniques such as rainbow tables.
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 confidenceBusyBox 1.1.1 generates password hashes without using a salt, meaning identical passwords produce identical hashes. This allows attackers with access to the password file to use pre-computed rainbow tables to quickly reverse-engineer plaintext passwords.
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= 1.1.1= 4.01= 4.1< 5.0all versions>= 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify installed BusyBox versionRun 'busybox --version' or check the binary version using 'ls -la /bin/busybox' and compare to 1.1.1Affected if The installed BusyBox version is exactly 1.1.1
-
Determine if password utilities are in useCheck if BusyBox is being used for user management by examining /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow and verifying the passwd binary linked to BusyBox using 'ls -la /bin/passwd'Affected if BusyBox manages user accounts and the passwd utility is provided by BusyBox
-
Inspect password hash formatExamine the password hash entries in /etc/shadow (if accessible) or /etc/passwd to see if hashes appear as raw MD5 or DES without a $...$ salt prefixAffected if Password hashes are 32-character MD5 strings or 13-character DES strings without preceding salt identifiers like $6$ or $1$
-
Verify hash uniqueness for duplicate passwordsCreate two test users with the same password using BusyBox passwd, then compare their hash values in /etc/shadowAffected if Both users have identical hash values in the password file indicating no salt is being used
A system is affected if it runs BusyBox 1.1.1 and uses its password management utilities to create or store user passwords without salting, allowing identical password hashes to be generated.
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 data4.05.0
Update BusyBox to a version that uses salted password hashing (e.g., SHA-512 with salt) when creating or modifying user passwords, or implement salting at the system level for password storage.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-1058 — 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-2006-1058 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