HTTP ServerWeb server / proxy · Apache
CVE-2007-1741
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 · uneditedMultiple race conditions in suexec in Apache HTTP Server (httpd) 2.2.3 between directory and file validation, and their usage, allow local users to gain privileges and execute arbitrary code by renaming directories or performing symlink attacks. NOTE: the researcher, who is reliable, claims that the vendor disputes the issue because "the attacks described rely on an insecure server configuration" in which the user "has write access to the document root."
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 confidenceRace condition in Apache suexec (2.2.3) between directory/file validation and their usage allows local privilege escalation via symlink or directory renaming attacks. The vulnerability exploits a TOCTOU (time-of-check-time-of-use) gap where suexec validates a file/directory but before using it, an attacker can manipulate the filesystem object.
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
HTTP ServerWeb server / proxy
= 2.2.3CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:H/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.
-
Identify installed Apache versionRun 'apache2 -v' or 'httpd -v' to get the Apache HTTP Server version numberAffected if The displayed version is exactly 2.2.3
-
Locate suexec binaryFind the suexec binary in the Apache installation (typically in the bin or sbin directory)Affected if suexec is present on the system and belongs to Apache 2.2.3
-
Check suexec versionRun 'suexec -V' or check the suexec binary versionAffected if suexec version reports as 2.2.3
-
Determine if CGI/SSI execution is enabledCheck Apache configuration for CGI (Script directive) or SSI (AddType text/html .shtml, AddOutputFilter INCLUDES .shtml)Affected if CGI or SSI execution is enabled and suexec is used to run user scripts
-
Check for writable document root directoriesInspect filesystem permissions on directories where user CGI scripts reside - look for world-writable or group-writable document root or cgi-bin directoriesAffected if Any document root or cgi-bin directory accessible to Apache is writable by untrusted users (the attack vector for this vulnerability)
You are affected if Apache version is exactly 2.2.3, suexec is in use, and untrusted users have write access to directories where suexec operates on files.
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 dataRestrict user write access to document root directories (preventing the attack vector) and upgrade to patched Apache versions; suexec should only be used with trusted configurations.
Fix this in HTTP Server
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2007-1741 — 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-2007-1741 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