CVE-2006-7151
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 · uneditedUntrusted search path vulnerability in the libtool-ltdl library (libltdl.so) 1.5.22-2.3 in Fedora Core 5 might allow local users to execute arbitrary code via a malicious library in the (1) hwcap, (2) 0, and (3) nosegneg subdirectories.
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 confidenceUntrusted search path vulnerability in libtool-ltdl library (libltdl.so) 1.5.22-2.3 allows local users to execute arbitrary code by placing malicious shared libraries in the hwcap, 0, or nosegneg subdirectories, which the vulnerable library loads without proper validation.
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= 1.5.22-2.3CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:S/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.
-
Identify installed libtool-ltdl versionRun package manager query (e.g., rpm -q libtool-ltdl, dpkg -l libtool-ltdl, or check /usr/lib/libltdl* version string) to determine the exact version installedAffected if Version returned matches 1.5.22-2.3 exactly
-
Locate libltdl.so shared libraryFind libltdl.so on the system using 'find /usr -name libltdl.so* 2>/dev/null' or check library search paths configured in ldconfigAffected if libltdl.so exists on the system from the affected version of libtool-ltdl
-
Identify vulnerable subdirectoriesCheck for existence of 'hwcap', '0', and 'nosegneg' subdirectories in common library paths (typically under /usr/lib or /lib variants)Affected if Any of these three subdirectories (hwcap, 0, nosegneg) exist in library directories
-
Check permissions on vulnerable subdirectoriesRun 'ls -la' on the hwcap, 0, and nosegneg subdirectories found in library paths to verify write permissions for untrusted usersAffected if One or more of these subdirectories are world-writable or group-writable by a group containing untrusted users
-
Verify library loading behaviorInspect application binaries or scripts that link against libltdl.so and trace which library paths they attempt to load using ldd or strace during executionAffected if Applications load libraries from the hwcap, 0, or nosegneg subdirectories without validation
A user is affected if libtool-ltdl version 1.5.22-2.3 is installed AND writable hwcap, 0, or nosegneg subdirectories exist in library paths accessible to untrusted local users.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of libtool-ltdl or apply vendor-supplied patches. Restrict permissions on these subdirectories to prevent untrusted users from placing malicious libraries.
- 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-2006-7151 — 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-2006-7151 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