CVE-2010-0015
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 · uneditednis/nss_nis/nis-pwd.c in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) 2.7 and Embedded GLIBC (EGLIBC) 2.10.2 adds information from the passwd.adjunct.byname map to entries in the passwd map, which allows remote attackers to obtain the encrypted passwords of NIS accounts by calling the getpwnam function.
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 GNU C Library (glibc) versions 2.7 and EGLLIBC 2.10.2 contain a flaw in nis/nss_nis/nis-pwd.c where the getpwnam function improperly combines data from the passwd.adjunct.byname NIS map with standard passwd entries. This allows remote attackers to obtain encrypted password hashes for NIS accounts by simply querying getpwnam, resulting in password hash disclosure.
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= 2.7= 2.10.2CVSS 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.
-
Check glibc version installedRun `ldd --version` or `glibc --version` and note the reported version numberAffected if Version is exactly 2.7 or 2.10.2 (EGLIBC)
-
Verify NIS support is enabledExamine /etc/nsswitch.conf and look for 'nis' or 'compat' entries in the passwd, group, or shadow linesAffected if NIS is listed in the passwd line (e.g., passwd: files nis)
-
Check for NIS service availabilityRun `ypwhich` or check for running ypbind process with `ps aux | grep yp`Affected if ypbind or other NIS client processes are running
-
Check for passwd.adjunct configurationLook for passwd.adjunct.* map files in /var/yp or check if NIS is configured to use adjunct filesAffected if passwd.adjunct.byname NIS map is configured on the NIS server being queried
You are affected if glibc version 2.7 or EGLLIBC 2.10.2 is installed AND NIS with passwd.adjunct support is enabled on your system, as this allows getpwnam to return password hash data from the adjunct map.
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 dataUpdate glibc/EGLIBC to a patched version that separates passwd.adjunct.byname data from passwd map queries. Alternatively, disable NIS if not required, or restrict network access to NIS services.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0015 — 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-2010-0015 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