CVE-2008-3970
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 · uneditedpam_mount 0.10 through 0.45, when luserconf is enabled, does not verify mountpoint and source ownership before mounting a user-defined volume, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions via a local mount.
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 confidencepam_mount versions 0.10-0.45 with luserconf enabled do not verify that the user owns the mountpoint or source volume before performing a mount operation. This allows local users to mount arbitrary volumes, potentially bypassing intended access restrictions and gaining unauthorized access to sensitive filesystems.
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= 0.10= 0.11= 0.12.2= 0.13= 0.15= 0.16= 0.17= 0.18= 0.19= 0.20= 0.21= 0.26CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/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 installed pam_mount versionRun 'rpm -q pam_mount' or 'dpkg -l pam_mount' or 'pacman -Q pam_mount' depending on your package manager, or check /lib/security/pam_mount.so version with 'ldd -v /lib/security/pam_mount.so'Affected if Version is 0.10, 0.11, 0.12.2, 0.13, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, 0.20, 0.21, 0.26, or any version between 0.10 and 0.45 (compare your version to the affected range)
-
Locate pam_mount configuration fileCheck for /etc/security/pam_mount.conf.xml or /etc/pam_mount.conf.xml using 'ls -la /etc/security/pam_mount.conf* /etc/pam_mount.conf*'Affected if A pam_mount configuration file exists (the vulnerability only applies when luserconf is configured)
-
Verify luserconf is enabledGrep for 'luserconf' in the pam_mount configuration file: 'grep -i luserconf /etc/security/pam_mount.conf.xml /etc/pam_mount.conf.xml 2>/dev/null'Affected if luserconf is set to 'yes' or 'true' or the luserconf directive is present and uncommented (vulnerability only applies when luserconf is enabled)
-
Check for luserconf user configuration filesLook for .pam_mount.conf.xml in user home directories: 'find /home -name .pam_mount.conf.xml 2>/dev/null' and check if any existAffected if Any .pam_mount.conf.xml files exist in user home directories (indicates luserconf is being used, which is the attack vector for this vulnerability)
You are affected if pam_mount version is between 0.10 and 0.45 AND luserconf is enabled in the configuration file, allowing any local user to configure mount points they control.
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 pam_mount to a version that includes ownership verification for mountpoints and source volumes, or disable luserconf if not required. If upgrading is not possible, restrict luserconf usage through additional access controls.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,488.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-3970 — 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-2008-3970 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