FreeBSDOperating system
CVE-2006-2654
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in smbfs smbfs on FreeBSD 4.10 up to 6.1 allows local users to escape chroot restrictions for an SMB-mounted filesystem via "..\\" sequences. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2006-1864, but this is a different implementation of smbfs, so it has a different CVE identifier.
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 confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in FreeBSD's smbfs (SMB filesystem) allows local users to escape chroot restrictions by using '..\' sequences in SMB-mounted paths, enabling access to files outside the intended mount point. The vulnerability stems from improper handling of backslash path separators in the smbfs kernel implementation.
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
FreeBSDOperating system
= 5.0= 5.1= 5.2= 5.2.1= 5.3= 5.4= 6.0CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Check FreeBSD versionRun `uname -r` or `freebsd-version -u` to determine the installed FreeBSD release versionAffected if The version matches one of the following: 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3, 5.4, or 6.0
-
Verify smbfs kernel module is loadedRun `kldstat | grep smbfs` to check if the smbfs kernel module is currently loaded in memoryAffected if The smbfs module appears in the loaded module list, indicating the vulnerable code is active
-
Identify active SMB mountsRun `mount | grep -i smb` or check `/var/log/mountdlog` (if available) to list currently mounted SMB filesystemsAffected if There are active SMB mounts using smbfs, particularly in environments where chroot isolation is expected
-
Assess chroot environment exposureReview the system configuration to determine if any chroot environments contain or have access to smbfs-mounted paths; check chroot jail configurations and mount namespacesAffected if SMB mounts are accessible from within chroot or jail environments, allowing the '..\' traversal to escape the intended isolation boundary
A system is affected if it runs FreeBSD 5.0-6.0, has the smbfs module loaded, has active SMB mounts, and those mounts are accessible within chroot environments where the '..\' sequence could be used to escape the chroot boundary.
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 dataApply FreeBSD vendor patches for smbfs; ensure SMB mounts in chroot environments use read-only options where possible and consider additional filesystem namespace isolation.
Fix this in FreeBSD
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $5,472.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2654 — 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-2006-2654 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