CVE-2007-4027
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in cli32 in Areca CLI 1.72.250 and earlier might allow local users to gain privileges via a long argument. NOTE: this program is not setuid by default, but there are some usage scenarios in which an administrator might make it setuid.
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 · moderate confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the cli32 command-line interface binary of Areca CLI version 1.72.250 and earlier. The flaw allows local users to potentially gain elevated privileges by supplying an excessively long argument that overflows a buffer. While the program is not setuid by default, administrators who configure it as setuid create an attack vector for local 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<= 1.72.250CVSS 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.
-
Locate the cli32 binarySearch for the cli32 binary on the system using: find / -name "cli32" -type f 2>/dev/nullAffected if The binary exists on the system and is the Areca CLI command-line interface tool
-
Determine cli32 binary versionRun the cli32 binary with a version flag, typically: ./cli32 -v or ./cli32 --version. If no version flag exists, check the binary metadata or any version file in the installation directory.Affected if The reported version is 1.72.250 or any version lower than 1.72.250 (for example, 1.72, 1.71, etc.)
-
Check setuid permissions on cli32Run: ls -la /path/to/cli32 (replace with the actual path found in step 1). Look for an 's' in the owner permissions column (for example, -rwsr-xr-x).Affected if The binary has the setuid bit set (owner permissions show 's' instead of 'x', such as -rwsr-xr-x)
-
Verify effective UID behaviorRun: id command before and after executing cli32. If the effective user ID changes to the file owner (typically root), the setuid is taking effect.Affected if The effective UID changes to root or another elevated user when running cli32, confirming setuid is active
The system is affected if the cli32 binary exists with version 1.72.250 or earlier AND has the setuid bit enabled, creating a local privilege escalation risk.
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 dataAvoid making the cli32 binary setuid. If setuid is required, upgrade to a patched version and ensure strict input validation is implemented on all command-line arguments.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-4027 — 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-2007-4027 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