CVE-2010-1693
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 · uneditedopenibd in OpenFabrics Enterprise Distribution (OFED) 1.5.2 allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink attack on the /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh temporary file.
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 openibd init script in OpenFabrics Enterprise Distribution (OFED) 1.5.2 creates a temporary file at /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh without proper safeguards, allowing a local unprivileged user to pre-create a symlink at that location pointing to an arbitrary target file. When openibd runs (typically with elevated privileges), it follows the symlink and overwrites the target file, leading to arbitrary file overwrite with root privileges.
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= 1.5.2CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Check if OpenFabrics OFED is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i ofed' or check for /usr/sbin/openibd or /etc/init.d/openibdAffected if No OFED installation found - not affected by this specific CVE
-
Verify the OFED version is 1.5.2Run 'rpm -qa | grep -i ofed' or check /etc/rdma/neighbour.d/ for version files, or run 'openibd --version' if availableAffected if Version is exactly 1.5.2 - this is the affected version
-
Examine the openibd init script for unsafe temp file creationInspect /etc/init.d/openibd or /usr/sbin/openibd for patterns like '> /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh' without mktemp or O_EXCLAffected if Script contains '> /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh' without secure temporary file handling - vulnerable
-
Check for pre-existing symlink at the temp file pathRun 'ls -la /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh' to see if it exists as a symlinkAffected if A symlink already exists at /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh - exploitation may have occurred or be imminent
-
Check if openibd service runs with elevated privilegesCheck openibd script ownership and permissions: 'ls -la /etc/init.d/openibd' and look for root ownership with suid bit, or check if service runs as root in process listAffected if openibd runs as root - the symlink attack would succeed with root file overwrite capability
You are affected only if OFED version 1.5.2 is installed AND the openibd init script contains unsafe temp file creation for /tmp/ib_set_node_desc.sh without mktemp or O_EXCL safeguards.
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 dataReplace unsafe temporary file creation in openibd with secure methods such as mktemp command or open() with O_EXCL flag to prevent symlink attacks; alternatively, upgrade to a patched OFED version if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1693 — 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-2010-1693 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