CVE-2010-2198
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 · uneditedlib/fsm.c in RPM 4.8.0 and earlier does not properly reset the metadata of an executable file during replacement of the file in an RPM package upgrade or deletion of the file in an RPM package removal, which might allow local users to gain privileges or bypass intended access restrictions by creating a hard link to a vulnerable file that has (1) POSIX file capabilities or (2) SELinux context information, a related issue to CVE-2010-2059.
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 confidenceRPM 4.8.0 and earlier in lib/fsm.c fails to reset executable file metadata (POSIX file capabilities and SELinux contexts) during package upgrades or removals. A local attacker can create hard links to vulnerable files that retain elevated privileges from previous package versions, enabling privilege escalation or bypass of access controls.
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
- 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.
-
Check installed RPM versionRun `rpm --version` or `rpm -q rpm` to determine the exact version of RPM installed on the system.Affected if RPM version is 4.8.0 or earlier, or any version 1.2 through 1.4.7, or any version 2.x through 4.10 (the version string will be <= 4.8.0).
-
Verify if SELinux is enabledRun `getenforce` or check `/etc/selinux/config` to see if SELinux is enforcing or permissive.Affected if SELinux is enabled (enforcing or permissive mode) on a system with vulnerable RPM version.
-
Check for POSIX file capabilities on executablesRun `getcap -r /usr/bin /usr/sbin 2>/dev/null` to list executables with POSIX capabilities set.Affected if Executables with POSIX capabilities (such as cap_setuid, cap_net_raw, etc.) exist on a system with vulnerable RPM version.
-
Audit for hard links to sensitive filesSearch for hard links using `find / -xdev -type f -links +1 2>/dev/null` and inspect whether any point to files in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /etc, or other sensitive directories that may have been upgraded or removed.Affected if Hard links exist pointing to files that were previously upgraded or removed via RPM, particularly executables or configuration files.
A system is affected if it runs RPM version 4.8.0 or earlier and has performed package upgrades or removals while using SELinux or POSIX file capabilities, allowing hard links to retain elevated privileges from previous package versions.
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 which properly resets file metadata during upgrade and removal operations; audit existing systems for hard links to formerly privileged files.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2198 — 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-2010-2198 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