CVE-2007-5970
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 · uneditedMySQL 5.1.x before 5.1.23 and 6.0.x before 6.0.4 allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges on arbitrary tables via unspecified vectors involving use of table-level DATA DIRECTORY and INDEX DIRECTORY options when creating a partitioned table with the same name as a table on which the user lacks privileges.
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 confidenceMySQL 5.1.x before 5.1.23 and 6.0.x before 6.0.4 contains a privilege escalation flaw where authenticated remote users can gain privileges on arbitrary tables by exploiting DATA DIRECTORY and INDEX DIRECTORY options when creating partitioned tables with the same name as tables they lack permissions on.
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= 5.1.1= 5.1.2= 5.1.10= 5.1.11= 5.1.12= 5.1.13= 5.1.14= 5.1.15= 5.1.16= 5.1.17= 6.0.0= 6.0.1CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
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 MySQL server versionRun: SELECT VERSION(); or mysqld --versionAffected if Version is 5.1.1 through 5.1.22, or 6.0.0 through 6.0.3, or any 6.0.x version before 6.0.4
-
Verify if partitioning is enabledRun: SHOW VARIABLES LIKE 'have_partitioning';Affected if Partitioning is enabled (value is YES)
-
Identify users with CREATE TABLE privilegeRun: SHOW GRANTS FOR 'username'@'host'; for each user, or query mysql.user table for CREATE privilegesAffected if Any untrusted or low-privilege user has CREATE TABLE permission
-
Audit for CREATE TABLE using DATA DIRECTORY or INDEX DIRECTORYReview MySQL general query log, binary log, or audit logs for CREATE TABLE statements containing these optionsAffected if Such statements exist and were executed by users without ownership of the target tables
-
Check for partitioned tables owned by non-admin usersQuery: SELECT TABLE_SCHEMA, TABLE_NAME, PARTITION_NAME FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.PARTITIONS WHERE TABLE_SCHEMA NOT IN ('mysql','information_schema'); compare against table ownersAffected if Partitioned tables exist and were created by users who do not own the underlying non-partitioned tables of the same name
You are affected if your MySQL version falls within 5.1.1-5.1.22 or 6.0.0-6.0.3, partitioning is enabled, and untrusted users have CREATE TABLE permission which could allow privilege escalation via partitioned table name collisions.
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 MySQL to version 5.1.23 or higher, or 6.0.4 or higher. Apply the principle of least privilege by restricting CREATE TABLE permissions for untrusted users.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-5970 — 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-2007-5970 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