CVE-2008-3188
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 · uneditedlibxcrypt in SUSE openSUSE 11.0 uses the DES algorithm when the configuration specifies the MD5 algorithm, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct brute-force attacks against hashed passwords.
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 libxcrypt library in SUSE openSUSE 11.0 incorrectly uses the weak DES algorithm for password hashing when the configuration specifies the stronger MD5 algorithm. This creates a significant security gap where passwords are protected by DES's weak 56-bit key instead of the intended MD5-based hashing, making brute-force attacks far more feasible.
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= 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Verify openSUSE versionRun 'cat /etc/SuSE-release' or 'lsb_release -a' to confirm the installed openSUSE version is 11.0Affected if The system is running openSUSE 11.0 specifically
-
Check if libxcrypt is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep libxcrypt' or 'zypper se libxcrypt' to see if the libxcrypt package is present on the systemAffected if libxcrypt package is installed on openSUSE 11.0
-
Review password hashing configurationInspect /etc/login.defs for the MD5_CRYPT_ENAB or ENCRYPT_METHOD setting, and check /etc/pam.d/* files for pam_unix.so or pam_cracklib arguments mentioning md5Affected if Configuration specifies MD5 hashing but DES is being used instead
-
Test actual hashing algorithm in useCreate a test user with a known password using 'useradd -p <password> testuser' and then check /etc/shadow to observe the hash prefix (DES starts with $1$ for MD5, or 2-character salt for raw DES)Affected if Password hashes in /etc/shadow show DES-style patterns instead of MD5 ($1$) format despite MD5 being configured
A user is affected if running openSUSE 11.0 with libxcrypt installed where MD5 is configured for password hashing but DES hashes are actually being generated.
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 dataUpdate or patch libxcrypt to correctly use MD5 hashing as configured; consider migrating to modern password hashing algorithms like bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2 if the system supports it.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3188 — 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-2008-3188 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