CVE-2010-0414
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 · uneditedgnome-screensaver before 2.28.2 allows physically proximate attackers to bypass screen locking and access an unattended workstation by moving the mouse position to an external monitor and then disconnecting that monitor.
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 confidencegnome-screensaver before 2.28.2 contains a flaw where moving the mouse cursor to an external monitor and then disconnecting that monitor allows bypassing the screen lock mechanism, granting access to an unattended workstation.
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<= 2.28.1= 2.13= 2.20= 2.20.0= 2.26.1= 2.28.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/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 gnome-screensaver is installedRun `dpkg -l | grep gnome-screensaver` on Debian/Ubuntu, or `rpm -qa | grep gnome-screensaver` on RHEL/Fedora, or check your package manager for the installed package.Affected if gnome-screensaver is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionRun `gnome-screensaver --version` or check the package version via your package manager (dpkg -l or rpm -qi).Affected if The installed version is 2.28.1 or earlier, or matches any of these: 2.13, 2.20, 2.20.0, 2.26.1, 2.28.0
-
Check for multi-monitor configurationInspect /etc/X11/xorg.conf for multiple screen sections, or run `xrandr --listmonitors` to see connected displays.Affected if The system has more than one monitor configured or connected (external monitor required for this flaw)
-
Verify screensaver lock is enabledCheck the org.gnome.desktop.screensaver lock-enabled setting via `gsettings get org.gnome.desktop.screensaver lock-enabled`, or inspect the user's dconf/gnome configuration.Affected if Lock is enabled AND the version is vulnerable AND multi-monitor setup exists - all conditions must be true for exploitation
A system is affected only if it runs a vulnerable gnome-screensaver version (2.28.1 or earlier, or specifically 2.13, 2.20, 2.20.0, 2.26.1, 2.28.0) AND has multiple monitors configured with the lock enabled.
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 gnome-screensaver to version 2.28.2 or later, or ensure workstations are physically secured to prevent unauthorized monitor disconnection.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0414 — 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-2010-0414 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