CVE-2010-0412
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 · uneditedstap-server in SystemTap 1.1 does not properly restrict the value of the -B (aka BUILD) option, which allows attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors associated with executing the make program, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-4273.
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 confidenceThe stap-server component in SystemTap fails to properly validate or restrict the -B (BUILD) option passed to it, allowing attackers to influence the make program execution with potentially arbitrary values. This input validation failure could enable injection of malicious make targets or options.
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= 1.1CVSS 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 installed SystemTap versionRun 'rpm -q systemtap' or 'dpkg -l systemtap' depending on your Linux distribution, or check 'stap --version' outputAffected if The installed version is SystemTap 1.1 (exact match)
-
Verify stap-server component presenceCheck if the stap-server binary or script exists on the system: run 'which stap-server' or look for it in typical paths like /usr/bin/stap-server or /usr/sbin/stap-serverAffected if The stap-server component is present and executable on the system
-
Check for -B option usage in stap-server configurationInspect any configuration files, scripts, or wrapper files that invoke stap-server, looking for instances where the -B flag is passed to make or stap-server; use 'grep -r "-B"' in relevant directoriesAffected if The -B option is being passed to stap-server without input validation or sanitization in place
-
Inspect running stap-server processesIf stap-server is currently running, examine its command line arguments: run 'ps aux | grep stap-server' or 'ps aux | grep -i systemtap'Affected if A running stap-server process shows the -B option being used with user-controlled or unsanitized values
A system is affected if it runs SystemTap version 1.1 with the stap-server component and allows unsanitized -B option input to reach the make invocation.
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 dataRestrict and sanitize the -B option input to only allow known-safe build configuration values, following the principle of least privilege for the make invocation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0412 — 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-2010-0412 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