CVE-2006-2703
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 · uneditedThe RedCarpet command-line client (rug) does not verify SSL certificates from a server, which allows remote attackers to read network traffic and execute commands via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack.
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 confidenceThe RedCarpet command-line client (rug) fails to validate SSL certificates when establishing connections to servers, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted traffic, read sensitive data, and inject malicious commands by impersonating the legitimate server.
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= 9.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/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.
-
Check if rug client is installedRun 'which rug' or 'rpm -q rug' to see if the RedCarpet client is present on the systemAffected if rug command is found and responds to connection commands
-
Verify the operating system versionRun 'cat /etc/SuSE-release' or 'uname -a' to identify the Suse Linux versionAffected if System is running Suse Linux 9.0 specifically
-
Inspect SSL configuration for rugCheck the rug client configuration files in /etc/rug/ or ~/.rug/ for SSL-related settings such as 'ssl_verify' or 'check_certificates'Affected if SSL verification is explicitly disabled, set to false, or absent entirely
-
Test SSL certificate validation behaviorAttempt to connect to an HTTPS server with an invalid or self-signed certificate using rug and observe if the connection succeeds without warningAffected if Connections to servers with invalid SSL certificates succeed without error or rejection
A user is affected if they have the rug client installed on Suse Linux 9.0 and the client connects to servers without validating SSL certificates, allowing potentially intercepted or injected traffic.
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 dataImplement proper SSL certificate verification in the rug client, including certificate chain validation, hostname verification, and rejection of expired or self-signed certificates without explicit configuration.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-2703 — 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-2006-2703 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