CVE-2011-2645
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in Kiwi before 3.74.2, as used in SUSE Studio 1.1 before 1.1.4, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted filename for a custom RPM.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a 2011 vulnerability in Kiwi (an OS image build tool) before version 3.74.2, as used in SUSE Studio 1.1 before 1.1.4. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by supplying a crafted filename for a custom RPM package, suggesting a filename parsing/handling vulnerability that could lead to command injection or code execution during RPM processing.
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<= 3.74.1= 1.1CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 if Kiwi is installedRun 'kiwi --version' or check the installed package version using your system's package manager (e.g., 'rpm -qi kiwi' or 'dpkg -l kiwi')Affected if The installed Kiwi version is 3.74.1 or earlier
-
Identify if SUSE Studio is installedCheck the SUSE Studio installation for its version number, typically accessible via the web interface or by querying installed packages (e.g., 'rpm -qi susestudio')Affected if The installed SUSE Studio version is 1.1 (any subversion before 1.1.4)
-
Confirm RPM package handling is in useDetermine whether the system or application processes custom RPM packages from untrusted sources, as the vulnerability is triggered during RPM filename parsingAffected if Custom RPM package uploads are accepted and processed by the Kiwi or SUSE Studio installation
You are affected if Kiwi version is 3.74.1 or earlier, or if SUSE Studio Onsite version is 1.1 (any release before 1.1.4), and the system processes custom RPM packages.
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 Kiwi to version 3.74.2 or later, and SUSE Studio to version 1.1.4 or later. If upgrading is not feasible, restrict untrusted RPM inputs and implement strict filename validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-2645 — 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-2011-2645 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