CVE-2008-3187
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 · uneditedzypp-refresh-patches in zypper in SUSE openSUSE 10.2, 10.3, and 11.0 does not ask the user before accepting repository keys, which allows remote repositories to cause a denial of service (package data corruption) via a spoofed key.
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 zypp-refresh-patches component in SUSE zypper package manager for openSUSE 10.2, 10.3, and 11.0 automatically accepts repository cryptographic keys without user confirmation. This allows remote malicious repositories to inject spoofed keys that cause package data corruption, resulting in a denial of service.
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= 10.2= 10.3= 11.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
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 installed zypper versionRun 'zypper --version' or 'rpm -q zypper' to identify the installed zypper package versionAffected if The version is 10.2, 10.3, or 11.0 exactly as listed in affected versions
-
Locate zypper configuration fileCheck for /etc/zypp/zypp.conf or ~/.zypp.conf configuration files that control repository behaviorAffected if Configuration files exist and contain settings related to gpgkey or key acceptance
-
Inspect automatic key acceptance settingSearch configuration for 'gpgcheck', 'gpgkey', 'accept', 'trust' or similar options that control whether zypper automatically accepts repository keys without promptingAffected if A setting exists that enables automatic key acceptance (e.g., config option allowing auto-accept of unsigned repository keys or auto-import of keys)
You are affected if running zypper version 10.2, 10.3, or 11.0 AND automatic repository key acceptance is enabled in your zypper configuration, as this allows untrusted repositories to inject spoofed keys.
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 dataDisable automatic repository key acceptance in zypper configuration and manually verify all repository keys before adding or refreshing repositories. Consider upgrading to newer openSUSE versions that have fixed this behavior.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $4,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3187 — 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-2008-3187 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