CVE-2010-3380
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 · uneditedThe (1) init.d/slurm and (2) init.d/slurmdbd scripts in SLURM before 2.1.14 place the . (dot) directory 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 confidenceThe init.d/slurm and init.d/slurmdbd scripts in SLURM before version 2.1.14 incorrectly add the current working directory (.) to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable. This allows a local attacker to place a malicious shared library in the directory where these scripts execute, causing arbitrary code to run with the privileges of the SLURM service process (typically root).
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<= 2.1.13= 1.3.10= 1.3.11= 1.3.12= 1.3.13= 1.3.14= 1.3.15= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4CVSS 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.
-
Identify SLURM versionRun 'slurmctld --version' or check the installed package (e.g., 'rpm -q slurm' or 'dpkg -l slurm')Affected if The version is 2.1.13 or earlier, or falls within 1.3.10-1.3.15, or 2.0.0-2.0.4
-
Locate init.d scriptsCheck for the presence of /etc/init.d/slurm and /etc/init.d/slurmdbdAffected if Either script exists on the system
-
Inspect LD_LIBRARY_PATH in init scriptUse grep to search for LD_LIBRARY_PATH in /etc/init.d/slurm and /etc/init.d/slurmdbd: grep -n 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH' /etc/init.d/slurm /etc/init.d/slurmdbdAffected if The output shows '.' being added to LD_LIBRARY_PATH (e.g., 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH' or similar)
-
Verify script execution contextCheck if these init scripts run with elevated privileges by reviewing file permissions: ls -la /etc/init.d/slurm /etc/init.d/slurmdbdAffected if The scripts are executable by root or the system service account, and the current working directory is writable by an attacker
The system is affected if SLURM version is within the vulnerable range AND the init.d/slurm or init.d/slurmdbd scripts exist AND these scripts contain '.' in their LD_LIBRARY_PATH setting.
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 dataRemove the '.' entry from LD_LIBRARY_PATH in both init.d/slurm and init.d/slurmdbd scripts, and upgrade SLURM to version 2.1.14 or later which contains the corrected initialization scripts.
- 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-2010-3380 — 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-2010-3380 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