CVE-2010-3349
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 · uneditedArdour 2.8.11 places a zero-length directory name in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse shared library in the current working directory.
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 confidenceArdour 2.8.11 sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include an empty string (zero-length directory name), which resolves to the current working directory. This allows a local attacker to place a malicious shared library in the working directory from which Ardour is launched, which will be loaded with the application's privileges, enabling 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= 2.8.11CVSS 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.
-
Check Ardour versionRun 'ardour --version' or check your package manager for the installed Ardour package versionAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.8.11 (this vulnerability only affects that specific version)
-
Verify LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains empty stringBefore launching Ardour, inspect the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable: 'echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH' or 'env | grep LD_LIBRARY_PATH'Affected if LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains consecutive colons (::) or begins/ends with a colon, indicating an empty directory entry
-
Observe LD_LIBRARY_PATH at runtimeLaunch Ardour and observe its environment, or use 'strings' on the Ardour binary to search for LD_LIBRARY_PATH assignments, or run 'ldd Ardour2.8' or check startup scripts for the variableAffected if The application sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include an empty string entry that resolves to the current working directory
-
Confirm working directory is writable by othersCheck permissions on directories from which you typically launch Ardour using 'ls -ld <directory>'Affected if Other users have write permissions (o+w) on the directory from which Ardour is launched, allowing them to place a malicious library there
You are affected if running Ardour version 2.8.11 and its LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable contains an empty string entry (empty directory) that resolves to the current working directory, which a local attacker could exploit by placing a malicious shared library in that directory.
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 to a patched version of Ardour that removes the zero-length directory from LD_LIBRARY_PATH. As a workaround, avoid running Ardour from directories where untrusted users can write files, or unset LD_LIBRARY_PATH before execution.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3349 — 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-2010-3349 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