Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2011-1070
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 · uneditedv86d before 0.1.10 do not verify if received netlink messages are sent by the kernel. This could allow unprivileged users to manipulate the video mode and potentially other consequences.
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 confidencev86d before 0.1.10 fails to verify the source of received netlink messages, allowing unprivileged users to send crafted messages that appear to come from the kernel. This enables manipulation of video mode settings and potentially other system interactions.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0= 10.0< 0.1.10CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Verify v86d is installedCheck if the v86d package or binary exists on the system. On Debian-based systems, run `dpkg -l | grep v86d` or check for the binary at `/usr/bin/v86d`Affected if v86d is not present on the system (not affected)
-
Determine installed v86d versionRun `v86d --version` or use the package manager: `dpkg -s v86d` on Debian systems to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if version cannot be determined or is below 0.1.10 (potentially affected)
-
Check if netlink feature is in useExamine system configuration for v86d netlink usage. Look for v86d configuration in `/etc/v86d` or check if v86d is running as a daemon. Inspect any init scripts or systemd service files that invoke v86d with netlink-related optionsAffected if v86d is installed but netlink functionality is not configured or in use (lower risk)
-
Compare version to affected rangeVerify the installed version against the vulnerable range: versions prior to 0.1.10 are affected. If version is 0.1.10 or later, the fix is presentAffected if installed version is less than 0.1.10 AND netlink feature is enabled/used (system is affected)
The system is affected if v86d is installed with a version below 0.1.10 and the netlink-based video mode setting functionality is actively configured or in use.
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 data0.1.10
Upgrade v86d to version 0.1.10 or later, which includes proper verification of netlink message origins to ensure messages are genuinely from the kernel.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2011-1070 — 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-2011-1070 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