CVE-2006-3378
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 · uneditedpasswd command in shadow in Ubuntu 5.04 through 6.06 LTS, when called with the -f, -g, or -s flag, does not check the return code of a setuid call, which might allow local users to gain root privileges if setuid fails in cases such as PAM failures or resource limits.
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 passwd command in the shadow package on Ubuntu 5.04 through 6.06 LTS, when invoked with -f, -g, or -s flags, fails to check the return value of the setuid() system call. Since passwd is typically setuid root, if setuid fails due to PAM failures, resource limits, or other error conditions, the program continues execution without handling this failure, potentially allowing a local user to exploit the situation for privilege escalation.
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= 5.04= 5.10= 6.06_ltsCVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Ubuntu versionRun 'lsb_release -a' or check /etc/lsb-release to determine the Ubuntu versionAffected if Version is 5.04, 5.10, or 6.06 LTS
-
Check shadow package versionRun 'dpkg -l | grep shadow' or 'dpkg -s login' to determine the installed version of the shadow packageAffected if Package version corresponds to the affected Ubuntu versions listed (5.04, 5.10, or 6.06 LTS)
-
Verify passwd is setuid rootRun 'ls -l /usr/bin/passwd' and check for 's' in the permissions (e.g., '-rwsr-xr-x')Affected if The setuid bit is set on the passwd binary (typical on these systems)
A system is affected if it runs Ubuntu 5.04, 5.10, or 6.06 LTS with the shadow package version from those releases and the passwd binary retains its setuid root permissions.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of the shadow package or migrate to a supported Ubuntu release. If immediate patching is not possible, consider disabling setuid bit on passwd and using sudo-based alternatives, though this impacts functionality.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-3378 — 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-2006-3378 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