CVE-2009-5054
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 · uneditedSmarty before 3.0.0 beta 4 does not consider the umask value when setting the permissions of files, which might allow attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via standard filesystem operations.
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 confidenceSmarty before 3.0.0 beta 4 does not consider the umask value when setting file permissions during template compilation and caching operations. This causes files to be created with potentially overly permissive access rights (typically 0644), allowing attackers with filesystem access to read or modify these files beyond intended restrictions.
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<= 2.6.26= 1.0= 1.0a= 1.0b= 1.1.0= 1.2.0= 1.2.1= 1.2.2= 1.3.0= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.4.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 Smarty versionLocate the Smarty library file (typically Smarty.class.php or Smarty.php) and read the version constant or comment near the top of the fileAffected if The version is 2.6.26 or lower, or matches one of these: 1.0, 1.0a, 1.0b, 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4.0
-
Verify template compilation is enabledCheck your Smarty configuration for $compile = true or $force_compile = true, or inspect your application code for Smarty::compile check callsAffected if Template compilation is enabled (this is when vulnerable file permissions are applied)
-
Check compiled template directory permissionsList the directory where Smarty stores compiled templates (commonly named templates_c, compile, or similar) and examine actual file permissions using 'ls -la'Affected if Files in the compiled directory show permissions of 0644 (rw-r--r--) or similarly open permissions rather than stricter values like 0600
-
Check cache directory permissionsIf Smarty caching is enabled, examine the cache directory permissions and inspect actual cached file permissions with 'ls -la'Affected if Cached files have overly permissive access (0644 or similar) allowing world-readable access
You are affected if you are running any Smarty version from 1.0 through 2.6.26 and have template compilation or caching enabled, with compiled/cached files readable by other users on the system.
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 Smarty 3.0.0 beta 4 or later where umask is properly respected. Review and restrict permissions on existing compiled template and cache files in the meantime.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-5054 — 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-2009-5054 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