CVE-2010-3192
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 · uneditedCertain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in glibc causes the __fortify_fail, __stack_chk_fail, and __chk_fail functions to print argv[0] and backtrace information when triggered, potentially leaking sensitive process memory contents. This is particularly dangerous in setuid/setgid programs where a buffer overflow could trigger these protections and expose sensitive data.
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< 2.26CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 the installed glibc versionRun `ldd --version` or check the libc shared library directly with `/lib/libc.so.6` (or /lib64/libc.so.6 on 64-bit systems) to obtain the version stringAffected if The reported glibc version is earlier than 2.26 (for example, 2.12, 2.11, 2.5, etc.)
-
Locate setuid and setgid binaries on the systemExecute `find / -perm -4000 -o -perm -2000 2>/dev/null` to find programs with special privileges that could trigger the vulnerable code pathAffected if Any setuid or setgid binaries exist on the system using the affected glibc version
-
Determine whether binaries were compiled with FORTIFY_SOURCEInspect the compiled binaries using `readelf -r <binary> | grep chk` or check for the presence of fortify-related symbols with `objdump -T <binary> | grep -i fortify`Affected if The binaries contain FORTIFY_SOURCE-compiled code that would invoke __fortify_fail, __stack_chk_fail, or __chk_fail functions upon detecting a buffer overflow
-
Verify the vulnerable functions exist in the glibc libraryRun `nm -D /lib/libc.so.6 | grep -E '__fortify_fail|__stack_chk_fail|__chk_fail'` to confirm these functions are exportedAffected if These functions are present in the installed glibc and would be called when a buffer overflow is detected in a running program
A system is affected if it runs glibc versions prior to 2.26 and executes setuid/setgid programs (or any programs) compiled with FORTIFY_SOURCE that could trigger the fortify functions, potentially leaking memory contents through the error messages.
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 data2.26
Upgrade glibc to a patched version. Audit and rebuild setuid/setgid binaries to eliminate the underlying buffer overflows that trigger these protections, and ensure FORTIFY_SOURCE is enabled during compilation.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,608.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3192 — 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-2010-3192 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