Update ManagerApplication · Canonical
CVE-2011-3152
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 · uneditedDistUpgrade/DistUpgradeFetcherCore.py in Update Manager before 1:0.87.31.1, 1:0.134.x before 1:0.134.11.1, 1:0.142.x before 1:0.142.23.1, 1:0.150.x before 1:0.150.5.1, and 1:0.152.x before 1:0.152.25.5 on Ubuntu 8.04 through 11.10 does not verify the GPG signature before extracting an upgrade tarball, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to (1) create or overwrite arbitrary files via a directory traversal attack using a crafted tar file, or (2) bypass authentication via a crafted meta-release file.
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 Update Manager's DistUpgradeFetcherCore.py fails to verify GPG signatures before extracting upgrade tarballs, allowing MITM attackers to inject malicious content via directory traversal in crafted tar files or bypass authentication through crafted meta-release files.
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
Update ManagerApplication
<= 1\:0.87.24= 1\
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 8.04= 10.04= 10.10= 11.04= 11.10CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N
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 Ubuntu versionRun 'lsb_release -r' or check /etc/lsb-releaseAffected if Version is 8.04, 10.04, 10.10, 11.04, or 11.10
-
Check Update Manager package versionRun 'dpkg -l update-manager' or 'apt-cache policy update-manager'Affected if Version is earlier than 1:0.87.24 (for 10.04/10.10), 0.134.11.1 (for 11.04), or 0.142.23.1 (for 11.10) - compare against known patched versions for each release
-
Verify Update Manager installationRun 'which update-manager' or 'dpkg -S /usr/bin/update-manager'Affected if The package is installed on an affected Ubuntu version
-
Locate vulnerable DistUpgradeFetcherCore.pyCheck for presence of /usr/share/python3/DistUpgradeFetcherCore.py or the python2 equivalent in the update-manager packageAffected if File exists and belongs to an unpatched update-manager version
Affected if running Ubuntu 8.04, 10.04, 10.10, 11.04, or 11.10 with Update Manager version below the patched releases (1:0.87.24, 0.134.11.1, 0.142.23.1, 0.150.5.1, or 0.152.25.5 depending on the Ubuntu release).
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 dataDeploy the patched Update Manager packages (0.87.31.1, 0.134.11.1, 0.142.23.1, 0.150.5.1, or 0.152.25.5) via standard Ubuntu security updates; consider network-level MITM protections as compensating control if patching is delayed.
Fix this in Update Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-3152 — 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-2011-3152 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