CVE-2009-0315
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 · uneditedUntrusted search path vulnerability in the Python module in xchat allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse Python file in the current working directory, related to a vulnerability in the PySys_SetArgv function (CVE-2008-5983).
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 xchat Python module has an untrusted search path vulnerability where it loads Python files from the current working directory before checking system paths. A local attacker can place a malicious Python file (e.g., os.py or site.py) in a directory from which a user runs xchat, causing arbitrary code execution when xchat initializes its Python interpreter.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Verify xchat is installedCheck if the xchat package exists on the system using package manager (dpkg -l xchat, rpm -qa xchat, or which xchat)Affected if xchat is installed on the system
-
Confirm Python plugin is loadedRun xchat with --help or check for libxchat/python.so / usr/lib/xchat/python.so file presence, or run xchat and check Plugin List for Python supportAffected if Python plugin/module is available and loaded by xchat
-
Identify directories from which xchat is launchedReview shell history, desktop shortcuts, or examine the current working directory when xchat starts. Check common launch locations: ~/Desktop, ~/Downloads, or directories where you often run commandsAffected if xchat is routinely launched from directories that could contain user-controllable content
-
Scan for Python files in common working directoriesList all .py files in directories where you typically run xchat: ls -la *.py in those directories, particularly checking for os.py or site.py filesAffected if Any Python files (especially os.py, site.py, or random.py) exist in directories from which xchat is launched that are writable by other users
If xchat with Python support is installed and could be launched from a directory containing attacker-writable Python files, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 dataUsers should ensure xchat is always run from trusted directories with trusted content, and administrators should update xchat to a version that fixes this path handling vulnerability in its Python module.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0315 — 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-2009-0315 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