UnpApplication · Debian
CVE-2007-6610
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 · uneditedunp 1.0.12, and other versions before 1.0.14, does not properly escape file names, which might allow context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a filename argument. NOTE: this might only be a vulnerability when unp is invoked by a third party product.
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 confidenceThe unp utility versions before 1.0.14 fails to properly escape shell metacharacters in filenames when processing archive contents. This allows context-dependent attackers to inject arbitrary shell commands via specially crafted filenames containing characters like ;, |, &, $, or backticks.
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
UnpApplication
<= 1.0.12CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Check if unp utility is installedRun 'which unp' or check for /usr/bin/unp in your systemAffected if The command returns a path (e.g., /usr/bin/unp), meaning unp is present and could be affected
-
Determine installed unp versionRun 'unp --version' or 'unp -V' to display the version numberAffected if The version displayed is 1.0.12 or lower (any version <= 1.0.12)
-
Identify if unp processes untrusted archivesReview your system for any scripts, cron jobs, or services that invoke unp on archives from untrusted or external sources (e.g., email attachments, downloaded files, user uploads)Affected if unp is used to automatically process archives from untrusted or unknown sources, making exploitation possible
You are affected if unp is installed, the version is 1.0.12 or lower, AND unp processes archives containing user-supplied or untrusted filenames that could contain shell metacharacters.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpdate unp to version 1.0.14 or later which contains the fix for proper filename escaping. If updating is not possible, ensure unp is not invoked by third-party products with untrusted input, or implement input sanitization at the calling application layer.
unp 1.0.14 or later
- Check the current installed version of unp using: dpkg -l unp or rpm -q unp
- Update the package repository metadata: apt-get update (Debian/Ubuntu) or emerge --sync (Gentoo)
- Upgrade unp to version 1.0.14 or later: apt-get install unp (Debian/Ubuntu) or emerge -av unp (Gentoo)
- Verify the installed version matches the fixed release (1.0.14 or higher): unp --version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Unp
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-2007-6610 — 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-2007-6610 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