CVE-2010-1645
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 · uneditedCacti before 0.8.7f, as used in Red Hat High Performance Computing (HPC) Solution and other products, allows remote authenticated administrators to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in (1) the FQDN field of a Device or (2) the Vertical Label field of a Graph Template.
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 confidenceCacti before 0.8.7f contains an OS command injection vulnerability allowing remote authenticated administrators to execute arbitrary shell commands via metacharacters in either the FQDN field when adding a device or the Vertical Label field in graph templates. This is a direct input validation failure where user-supplied data is passed to system shell without sanitization.
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<= 0.8.7e= 0.5= 0.6= 0.6.1= 0.6.2= 0.6.3= 0.6.4= 0.6.5= 0.6.6= 0.6.7= 0.6.8= 0.6.8aCVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/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 Cacti versionLog into the Cacti web interface as an administrator and navigate to the About or Console page to view the installed version, or inspect the version file in the Cacti installation directoryAffected if The installed version is 0.8.7e or lower, or falls within the 0.5.x or 0.6.x series (0.6 through 0.6.8a)
-
Confirm administrative access existsVerify that you have administrator-level credentials capable of logging into the Cacti web interfaceAffected if Remote authenticated administrator access is required for exploitation; if you cannot log in as admin, the vulnerability cannot be triggered in your environment
-
Check device addition capabilityNavigate to the Devices section and verify you can add a new device; locate the FQDN or Hostname field inputAffected if The FQDN field during device creation accepts unsanitized input passed to the system shell
-
Check graph template editing capabilityNavigate to the Graph Templates section and verify you can create or edit a template; locate the Vertical Label field inputAffected if The Vertical Label field in graph templates accepts unsanitized input passed to the system shell
You are affected if your Cacti version is 0.8.7e or earlier (including all 0.5.x and 0.6.x variants) AND you have authenticated administrator access to the web interface where the FQDN or Vertical Label fields can be populated with shell metacharacters.
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 Cacti 0.8.7f or later which includes proper input sanitization. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, restrict administrative access and implement input validation on the affected fields as a compensating control.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,128.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1645 — 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-2010-1645 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