CVE-2007-4000
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 kadm5_modify_policy_internal function in lib/kadm5/srv/svr_policy.c in the Kerberos administration daemon (kadmind) in MIT Kerberos 5 (krb5) 1.5 through 1.6.2 does not properly check return values when the policy does not exist, which might allow remote authenticated users with the "modify policy" privilege to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors that trigger a write to an uninitialized pointer.
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 confidenceIn MIT Kerberos 5 versions 1.5 through 1.6.2, the kadm5_modify_policy_internal function in the kadmind daemon fails to properly validate return values when a policy does not exist. This results in a write to an uninitialized pointer, which an authenticated attacker with 'modify policy' privilege could exploit to achieve arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the kadmind process.
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= 7>= 1.5, <= 1.6.2CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/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.
-
Check installed MIT Kerberos 5 versionRun 'krb5-config --version' or check the krb5-libs/krb5-server package version with your system package manager (e.g., 'rpm -q krb5-libs' or 'dpkg -l krb5').Affected if The installed version is 1.5, 1.6, 1.6.1, or 1.6.2 (any version from 1.5 through 1.6.2 inclusive).
-
Determine if kadmind daemon is runningCheck for the kadmind process: run 'ps aux | grep kadmind' or check if ports 749/tcp or 750/tcp are open with 'netstat -anp | grep -E "749|750"' or 'ss -tlnp | grep -E "749|750"'.Affected if The kadmind daemon is actively running and listening on network ports.
-
Identify principals with modify policy privilegeUse kadmin to list principals with the 'modify' privilege on policies: run 'kadmin -l' then 'listprincs *' to see principals, then check ACL files (typically /var/kerberos/krb5kdc/kadm5.acl) for entries granting 'modify' policy rights.Affected if Any principal (other than the kadmin/admin principal) has 'modify' or 'all' policy privileges defined in the kadmind ACL.
-
Check if policy validation can be triggeredThis vulnerability triggers when modifying a policy that does not exist. Use kadmin to attempt listing policies with 'getpol <nonexistent_policy_name>' or try 'modpol <nonexistent_policy> -maxlife <value>' to observe behavior.Affected if Kadmind is accessible and accepts modify policy operations (authenticated users with modify privilege can trigger the uninitialized pointer write).
You are affected if you run MIT Kerberos 5 versions 1.5 through 1.6.2 with kadmind daemon active and any principal has modify policy privileges accessible over the network.
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 krb5 version 1.6.3 or later which contains the fix. Until patched, restrict or disable the 'modify policy' privilege for untrusted principals and limit network access to kadmind ports (749/750).
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-4000 — 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 sources- web.mit.edu
- www.gentoo.org
- www.kb.cert.org
- www.redhat.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- securityreason.com
- www.mandriva.com
- www.novell.com
- www.vupen.com
- issues.rpath.com
- oval.cisecurity.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-4000 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