CVE-2008-4394
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 · uneditedMultiple untrusted search path vulnerabilities in Portage before 2.1.4.5 include the current working directory in the Python search path, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a modified Python module that is loaded by the (1) ys-apps/portage, (2) net-mail/fetchmail, (3) app-editors/leo ebuilds, and other ebuilds.
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 confidencePortage before version 2.1.4.5 includes the current working directory (.) in Python's sys.path when executing ebuilds. This allows a local attacker with write access to place a maliciously named Python module in the directory where an ebuild runs, causing it to be imported in place of the legitimate module, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the ebuild process.
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<= 2.1.4.4= 2.0.51.22= 2.1.1= 2.1.3.10= 2.1.3.11CVSS 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 Portage versionRun `emerge --version` or `portageq --version` to obtain the installed Portage version numberAffected if The version returned is 2.0.51.22, 2.1.1, 2.1.3.10, 2.1.3.11, or any version <= 2.1.4.4 (all of these are vulnerable)
-
Verify Python sys.path includes current directory during ebuild executionCreate a test ebuild that prints sys.path and run it with `ebuild` command, then inspect the output to see if '.' appears in the path listAffected if The output shows '.' or the current working directory path present in sys.path (vulnerable behavior)
-
Identify directories where ebuilds are executedCheck the build log or configuration for the directory path used during package compilation (typically /var/tmp/portage or a temporary directory)Affected if The ebuild execution directory is writable by untrusted users, allowing them to place malicious Python modules
You are affected if your installed Portage version is 2.0.51.22, 2.1.1, 2.1.3.10, 2.1.3.11, or any version <= 2.1.4.4, and ebuilds run in directories where untrusted users can write files.
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 Portage to version 2.1.4.5 or later, which removes the current working directory from Python's search path. As a defensive measure, avoid running ebuilds in directories writable by untrusted users.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-4394 — 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-2008-4394 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