CVE-2010-2961
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 · uneditedmountall.c in mountall before 2.15.2 uses 0666 permissions for the root.rules file, which allows local users to gain privileges by modifying this 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 · moderate confidenceThe mountall utility before version 2.15.2 creates the root.rules file with overly permissive 0666 permissions (world-readable and writable). This allows any local user to modify the root.rules file, which is processed by a privileged mountall process during system startup, enabling local privilege escalation.
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<= 2.14= 1.0CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/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 mountall utility is installedRun 'mountall --version' or check package manager for mountall package (e.g., dpkg -l mountall, rpm -qi mountall)Affected if mountall is not installed or version cannot be determined
-
Check installed mountall versionCompare the installed version to the affected ranges (versions <= 2.14 or version 1.0)Affected if Installed version is 2.14 or earlier, or exactly 1.0, and earlier than 2.15.2
-
Locate root.rules fileSearch for root.rules file used by mountall (typically in /var, /etc, or /lib directories)Affected if root.rules file exists on the system
-
Inspect root.rules file permissionsRun 'ls -l' on the root.rules file and check the permission bitsAffected if Permissions are exactly 0666 (world-readable and writable) or other overly permissive settings (such as 0664, 0660)
The system is affected if mountall version is <= 2.14 or exactly 1.0 AND the root.rules file exists with 0666 permissions, allowing any local user to modify a file processed by a privileged startup process.
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 dataUpdate mountall to version 2.15.2 or later. Alternatively, verify the permissions on root.rules are restricted (should be owned by root with 0600 or 0644 permissions) and correct if found to be 0666.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2961 — 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-2010-2961 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