CVE-2010-4000
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 · uneditedgnome-shell in GNOME Shell 2.31.5 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 confidencegnome-shell 2.31.5 incorrectly includes an empty (zero-length) directory entry in LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which causes the dynamic linker to treat the current working directory as a library search path. Local attackers can place a malicious shared library in a directory where gnome-shell runs, achieving arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the affected process.
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= 2.31.5CVSS 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 gnome-shell versionRun 'gnome-shell --version' or query your package manager (dpkg -l gnome-shell, rpm -q gnome-shell, etc.) to determine the installed versionAffected if version equals 2.31.5 exactly
-
Examine LD_LIBRARY_PATH at gnome-shell startupStart gnome-shell and capture the environment variable: 'env | grep LD_LIBRARY_PATH' from within the session, or inspect the startup script for LD_LIBRARY_PATH assignmentAffected if LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains an empty directory entry (appears as :: in the path, or a leading/trailing colon)
-
Determine gnome-shell working directoryCheck the current working directory when gnome-shell runs by examining the process: 'ps -p $(pgrep gnome-shell) -o cwd=' or checking where desktop sessions are launched fromAffected if gnome-shell runs from a directory writable by an untrusted user (such as /tmp, a shared filesystem, or a user home directory with weak permissions)
You are affected if gnome-shell version 2.31.5 is installed AND LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains an empty entry AND gnome-shell executes from a directory where a local attacker could place a malicious shared library.
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 gnome-shell that properly sanitizes LD_LIBRARY_PATH or remove empty entries from the library path. As a defensive measure, avoid running gnome-shell from untrusted directories.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-4000 — 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-2010-4000 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