CVE-2010-2197
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 · uneditedrpmbuild in RPM 4.8.0 and earlier does not properly parse the syntax of spec files, which allows user-assisted remote attackers to remove home directories via vectors involving a ;~ (semicolon tilde) sequence in a Name tag.
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 rpmbuild tool in RPM 4.8.0 and earlier contains a parsing vulnerability in spec file handling. Attackers can embed a ;~ (semicolon tilde) sequence within the Name tag of an RPM spec file, which gets incorrectly interpreted during package build processing, allowing removal of user home directories through path manipulation.
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= 1.2= 1.3= 1.3.1= 1.4= 1.4.2= 1.4.2\/a= 1.4.3= 1.4.4= 1.4.5= 1.4.6= 1.4.7= 2..4.10CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/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 RPM library versionRun `rpm --version` or `rpm -q rpm` to retrieve the installed RPM package versionAffected if The version is 4.10 or earlier, or falls within the 1.x series (1.2, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.4, 1.4.2, 1.4.2/a, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.7) listed in affected versions
-
Check rpmbuild tool versionRun `rpmbuild --version` to get the version of the rpmbuild binaryAffected if The version matches the same affected ranges (2.x through 4.10 or 1.x series)
-
Locate spec files in build directoriesSearch common rpm build directories (~/rpmbuild, /usr/src/redhat, /tmp) for .spec files using `find ~/rpmbuild -name '*.spec' 2>/dev/null` or check your configured build root with `rpm --eval '%_topdir'`Affected if Untrusted or externally-sourced spec files exist in build directories that could be processed by rpmbuild
-
Search for the vulnerable pattern in spec filesGrep spec files for the ';~' sequence in the Name tag: `grep -r ';~' /path/to/spec/files/*.spec` or manually inspect spec file Name: field contentAffected if Any spec file contains the ';~' pattern within the Name: tag value, indicating attempted exploitation
You are affected if rpmbuild version is 4.8.0 or earlier (or in the 1.x/2.x-4.10 range) AND untrusted spec files can be processed, especially if ';~' sequences are present in Name tags.
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 RPM to a version newer than 4.8.0, or implement strict validation of spec file content to reject suspicious sequences like ;~ in tag values before processing.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2197 — 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-2010-2197 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