CVE-2008-7016
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 · uneditedtnftpd before 20080929 splits large command strings into multiple commands, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks via unknown vectors, probably involving a crafted ftp:// link to a tnftpd server.
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 confidencetnftpd before version 20080929 contains a vulnerability where large command strings are split into multiple commands, enabling remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks through crafted ftp:// links to the vulnerable server.
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= 20040810= 20061217= 20080609CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Identify if tnftpd is runningCheck for FTP service listening on port 21 using 'netstat -tlnp | grep :21' or 'ss -tlnp | grep :21', or check running processes with 'ps aux | grep -i ftp'Affected if A FTP server is actively running and responding on the standard FTP port
-
Retrieve tnftpd version bannerConnect to the FTP server with 'ftp localhost' or 'nc localhost 21' and observe the welcome banner/version string that is displayed upon connectionAffected if The banner shows a version matching 20040810, 20061217, or 20080609
-
Verify exact tnftpd versionIf the tnftpd binary is accessible locally, check its version with 'tnftpd -v' or check the package version with 'dpkg -l | grep tnftpd' or 'rpm -qi tnftpd' depending on the system package managerAffected if The reported version is exactly 20040810, 20061217, or 20080609 (versions prior to the 20080929 fix)
-
Confirm command splitting is exploitableReview the tnftpd configuration for any URL handling settings, but note that the vulnerability is inherent to the vulnerable versions - if version is one of the affected ones, the command splitting behavior exists by designAffected if The installed version is one of the three affected versions listed, meaning the command splitting that enables CSRF is present
You are affected if a FTP server is running tnftpd and its version is exactly 20040810, 20061217, or 20080609, as these versions contain the command splitting flaw that enables CSRF attacks through crafted ftp:// links.
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 tnftpd to version 20080929 or later to address the command splitting vulnerability that enables CSRF attacks.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-7016 — 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-2008-7016 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