CVE-2009-3369
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 · uneditedCgiUserConfigEdit in BackupPC 3.1.0, when SSH keys and Rsync are in use in a multi-user environment, does not restrict users from the ClientNameAlias function, which allows remote authenticated users to read and write sensitive files by modifying ClientNameAlias to match another system, then initiating a backup or restore.
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 confidenceBackupPC 3.1.0 contains an authorization flaw in the CgiUserConfigEdit component. When SSH keys and Rsync are used in multi-user environments, the ClientNameAlias function is not properly restricted, allowing any authenticated user to modify ClientNameAlias to target another system and read/write sensitive files via backup/restore operations.
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= 3.1.0CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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 BackupPC versionCheck the installed BackupPC version to confirm it is 3.1.0. Look at the package version or the version reported by the software.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.1.0
-
Confirm multi-user environment with SSH keys and RsyncDetermine if the BackupPC installation is configured for multi-user access using SSH keys for authentication and Rsync for transfers. Check the configuration files for SSH key-based connections and Rsync settings.Affected if The environment uses SSH keys and Rsync in a multi-user setup where users can configure their own backup sources
-
Check CgiUserConfigEdit accessibilityExamine whether the CgiUserConfigEdit CGI component is accessible to authenticated (non-admin) users through the web interface.Affected if Regular authenticated users can access and use the CgiUserConfigEdit component
-
Verify ClientNameAlias modification capabilityTest or inspect whether authenticated users can modify the ClientNameAlias setting through the CgiUserConfigEdit interface to point to arbitrary hosts.Affected if Users can modify ClientNameAlias to target systems other than their own authorized hosts
You are affected if running BackupPC 3.1.0 in a multi-user environment where authenticated users can access CgiUserConfigEdit and modify ClientNameAlias to impersonate other hosts for backup/restore operations.
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 to a patched version of BackupPC that addresses this authorization bypass, or implement strict access controls to prevent users from modifying ClientNameAlias to impersonate other hosts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3369 — 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-2009-3369 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