CVE-2008-2940
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 alert-mailing implementation in HP Linux Imaging and Printing (HPLIP) 1.6.7 allows local users to gain privileges and send e-mail messages from the root account via vectors related to the setalerts message, and lack of validation of the device URI associated with an event message.
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 confidenceHP Linux Imaging and Printing (HPLIP) 1.6.7 contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability in its alert-mailing implementation. The setalerts message handling and event message processing lack proper validation of device URIs, allowing local users to send e-mail messages from the root account and gain elevated 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= 1.6.7CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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.
-
Verify HPLIP package is installedCheck for HPLIP installation using package manager (e.g., rpm -qa | grep -i hplip, dpkg -l | grep -i hplip, or ls /usr/share/hplip)Affected if HPLIP is installed on the system
-
Determine installed HPLIP versionRun 'hp-setup --version' or check package version via package managerAffected if Version equals exactly 1.6.7
-
Check if alert-mailing is configuredLook for alert or email configuration files in /etc/hp/ or ~/.hp/ directories, and check for presence of sendmail or mail configuration within HPLIP settingsAffected if Alert-mailing or email notification feature is enabled in HPLIP configuration
-
Inspect HPLIP alert configuration filesExamine files such as /etc/hp/hplip.conf, ~/.hplip/hplip.conf, or any alert-related configuration files for email/alert settingsAffected if Email alerts are configured to run from the root account
-
Check for suspicious mail activity or sendmail aliasesReview /etc/aliases or mail configuration for HPLIP-related entries, and check mail logs (/var/log/mail.log or /var/log/maillog) for any HPLIP-triggered emailsAffected if Mail is being sent through HPLIP alert functionality from root
A system is affected if HPLIP version 1.6.7 is installed AND the alert-mailing/email notification feature is enabled, allowing local users to potentially exploit the lack of URI validation in the alert handling to send mail as root.
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 a patched version of HPLIP beyond 1.6.7, or apply vendor-provided patches that add proper input validation and authorization checks to the alert-mailing functionality.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-2940 — 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-2008-2940 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