CVE-2008-1369
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 · uneditedA certain incorrect Sun Solaris 10 image on SPARC Enterprise T5120 and T5220 servers has /etc/default/login and /etc/ssh/sshd_config files that configure root logins in a manner unintended by the vendor, which allows remote attackers to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceThis CVE describes a misconfigured Solaris 10 system image deployed on SPARC Enterprise T5120 and T5220 servers. The /etc/default/login and /etc/ssh/sshd_config files were configured to allow root logins, contrary to vendor intentions, enabling remote attackers to gain administrative privileges.
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= 5.10CVSS 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.
-
Confirm the system is Solaris 10Run 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to identify the operating system versionAffected if The system is running SunOS 5.10 (Solaris 10)
-
Check if SSH daemon is enabledRun 'svcs -a | grep ssh' to see if the SSH service is runningAffected if SSH service is active and listening for connections
-
Inspect SSH daemon root login settingExamine /etc/ssh/sshd_config and look for 'PermitRootLogin' directiveAffected if PermitRootLogin is set to 'yes' or the directive is absent (defaulting to permit)
-
Inspect system login defaults for root accessExamine /etc/default/login and look for settings that permit root loginsAffected if The configuration allows root to log in directly
A system is affected if it runs Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10) with SSH enabled and has PermitRootLogin enabled in sshd_config or permissive root settings in /etc/default/login
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 · scopedModify /etc/ssh/sshd_config to set 'PermitRootLogin no' and update /etc/default/login to restrict root access, then restart the SSH daemon.
If the system was shipped with an incorrect Solaris 10 image from the vendor, contact the vendor for a corrected OS image or consider upgrading to a supported Solaris 11.x or later release
- Edit /etc/ssh/sshd_config and ensure 'PermitRootLogin no' is set (remove or comment any 'PermitRootLogin yes' directive)
- Edit /etc/default/login and ensure 'PERMIT_ROOT_LOGIN=no' or 'PERMIT_ROOT_LOGIN=NO' is set (remove or comment any setting allowing root login)
- Restart the SSH daemon: svcadm restart svc:/network/ssh:default
- Verify root login is disabled by attempting an SSH connection as root (should be denied)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2008-1369 — 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-2008-1369 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