OpenofficeApplication · Apache
CVE-2010-3689
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 · uneditedsoffice in OpenOffice.org (OOo) 3.x before 3.3 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 confidenceThe soffice binary in OpenOffice.org 3.x before 3.3 sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH with a zero-length directory entry, which is interpreted as the current working directory. When a user runs soffice from a directory containing a maliciously crafted shared library, the application loads the attacker's library instead of the legitimate system libraries, allowing 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
OpenofficeApplication
>= 3.0.0, < 3.3.0
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 8.04= 9.10= 10.04= 10.10
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 5.0= 6.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed OpenOffice versionRun 'soffice --version' or check the package manager (dpkg -l | grep openoffice, rpm -qa | grep openoffice)Affected if Version is 3.0.0 or higher but lower than 3.3.0
-
Verify LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains empty entries at runtimeRun 'env | grep LD_LIBRARY_PATH' before and after executing soffice, or use 'strace -f soffice 2>&1 | grep LD_LIBRARY_PATH' to trace how the variable is setAffected if LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains an empty string entry (shown as two consecutive colons or leading/trailing colon)
-
Check for presence of soffice binaryExecute 'which soffice' or 'find /usr -name soffice 2>/dev/null'Affected if The soffice binary exists and is executable in the PATH
-
Confirm vulnerability trigger conditionRun 'soffice' from a directory writable by other users, then inspect 'echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH' in a new shell after execution, or check if the current directory is prepended to LD_LIBRARY_PATHAffected if The current working directory appears in LD_LIBRARY_PATH or an empty entry is present, allowing library injection from the working directory
You are affected if OpenOffice version is 3.0.0 through 3.2.x AND LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains an empty directory entry that resolves to the current working 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 data3.3.0
Upgrade to OpenOffice.org 3.3 or later. As a workaround, avoid running soffice from directories writable by untrusted users, and verify that LD_LIBRARY_PATH does not contain empty directory entries.
Fix this in Openoffice
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3689 — 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-2010-3689 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