CVE-2009-0029
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 · uneditedThe ABI in the Linux kernel 2.6.28 and earlier on s390, powerpc, sparc64, and mips 64-bit platforms requires that a 32-bit argument in a 64-bit register was properly sign extended when sent from a user-mode application, but cannot verify this, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly gain privileges via a crafted system call.
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 confidenceA sign extension vulnerability in the Linux kernel 2.6.28 and earlier on s390, powerpc, sparc64, and mips 64-bit platforms allows local users to cause a denial of service or potentially gain privileges via crafted system calls. The ABI requires 32-bit arguments in 64-bit registers to be properly sign extended when passed from user-mode applications, but the kernel cannot verify this proper sign extension, allowing maliciously crafted arguments to trigger the vulnerability.
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<= 2.6.28= 4.0= 5.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/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 the running kernel versionRun `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version` to determine the installed kernel versionAffected if The kernel version is 2.6.28 or earlier
-
Verify the system architectureRun `uname -m` or `arch` to identify the system architectureAffected if The architecture is s390, powerpc, sparc64, or mips 64-bit variants (such as mips64, mips64el)
-
Check Debian system version if applicableRun `cat /etc/debian_version` or `lsb_release -a` on Debian systemsAffected if The system is Debian 4.0 or Debian 5.0 with a kernel at version 2.6.28 or earlier
The system is affected if it runs a Linux kernel version 2.6.28 or earlier on a 64-bit s390, powerpc, sparc64, or mips architecture.
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 the Linux kernel to version 2.6.29 or later, which contains the fix for proper sign extension validation in the affected 64-bit architectures.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0029 — 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-2009-0029 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