dbcve.org
Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian

CVE-2011-1145

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-11-14
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 2.2.14 or later.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click

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 · unedited
The SQLDriverConnect() function in unixODBC before 2.2.14p2 have a possible buffer overflow condition when specifying a large value for SAVEFILE parameter in the connection string.

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 confidence

Buffer overflow vulnerability in unixODBC's SQLDriverConnect() function allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code via a large SAVEFILE parameter in an ODBC connection string. The function fails to properly validate the length of the SAVEFILE parameter before copying it into a fixed-size buffer.

MitigationUpgrade unixODBC to version 2.2.14p2 or later. Until patched, avoid processing untrusted ODBC connection strings containing the SAVEFILE parameter, or implement application-layer input validation to restrict SAVEFILE parameter length.

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
Affected:= 8.0= 9.0= 10.0
Enterprise LinuxOperating system
Affected:= 4.0= 5.0= 6.0
UnixodbcApplication
Affected:<= 2.2.14
OpensuseOperating system
Affected:= 11.3= 11.4

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check if unixODBC is installed
    Run 'rpm -qa | grep -i unixodbc' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -l | grep -i unixodbc' (Debian) or check for libodbc.so files in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64
    Affected if unixODBC package or library is present on the system
  2. Determine the installed unixODBC version
    Run 'odbcinst -q -d' to list installed drivers, or check the package version with 'rpm -q unixodbc' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -s unixodbc' (Debian), or inspect the shared library version with 'odbc_config --version'
    Affected if The installed version is 2.2.14 or earlier
  3. Identify applications using ODBC with SQLDriverConnect
    Review application code or configuration for ODBC connection strings, or search for processes calling SQLDriverConnect using 'lsof | grep -i odbc' or by tracing with 'strace -e trace=network -f <app>' during runtime
    Affected if Applications process ODBC connection strings that could contain a SAVEFILE parameter
  4. Check for ODBC driver configuration files
    Inspect /etc/odbc.ini, /etc/odbcinst.ini, or ~/.odbc.ini for any connection configurations, and review any custom DSN configurations in the environment
    Affected if ODBC data sources are configured that might accept connection string parameters including SAVEFILE
  5. Audit logs for suspicious ODBC activity
    Review application and system logs for unusual ODBC connection attempts, particularly those with unusually long parameters or strings containing 'SAVEFILE'
    Affected if Logs show ODBC connection attempts with unusually long SAVEFILE parameter values

A system is affected if unixODBC version 2.2.14 or earlier is installed AND applications process ODBC connection strings containing the SAVEFILE parameter.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 2.2.14
Interim mitigation

Upgrade unixODBC to version 2.2.14p2 or later. Until patched, avoid processing untrusted ODBC connection strings containing the SAVEFILE parameter, or implement application-layer input validation to restrict SAVEFILE parameter length.

Fix this in Debian Linux Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1145 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-1145 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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