CVE-2010-4226
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 · uneditedcpio, as used in build 2007.05.10, 2010.07.28, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink within an RPM package archive.
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 cpio utility fails to properly sanitize symlinks within RPM package archives during extraction, allowing attackers to overwrite arbitrary files on the target system by creating malicious symlinks that resolve outside the intended extraction directory.
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 dataall versions= 2007.05.10= 2010.07.28CVSS 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
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 if cpio is installedRun 'which cpio' or 'rpm -q cpio' (RHEL-based) or 'dpkg -l cpio' (Debian-based) to see if the cpio binary exists on the systemAffected if cpio is installed and being used to extract RPM packages from untrusted sources
-
Identify cpio versionRun 'cpio --version' to display the installed version numberAffected if The version shown is any version of Gnu Cpio (the vulnerability affects all versions)
-
Check for RPM extraction usageReview scripts, automation, or manual commands that use 'cpio' to extract RPM packages (e.g., 'rpm2cpio | cpio -idmv')Affected if The system uses cpio to extract RPM packages, particularly from untrusted or external sources
-
Inspect RPM packages for suspicious symlinksUse 'rpm2cpio package.rpm | cpio -t' to list contents, then examine any symlinks with 'rpm2cpio package.rpm | cpio -t | grep ^l' and verify their targets do not contain '../' or resolve outside the extraction rootAffected if RPM packages contain symlinks with targets using '../' sequences or pointing to absolute paths outside the intended directory
-
Test extraction in isolationExtract an RPM in a temporary directory using 'mkdir /tmp/test_extract && cd /tmp/test_extract && rpm2cpio /path/to/package.rpm | cpio -idmv' then check if any files were created outside /tmp/test_extractAffected if Files appear outside the designated extraction directory after running cpio
The system is affected if cpio is installed and is used to extract RPM packages, especially from untrusted sources, because all versions of Gnu Cpio fail to validate symlink targets during extraction.
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 dataUpdate cpio to a patched version that properly validates symlink targets during extraction, or validate and inspect RPM packages from untrusted sources before extraction.
- 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-2010-4226 — 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-2010-4226 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