CVE-2011-4192
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 · uneditedkiwi before 4.85.1, as used in SUSE Studio Onsite 1.2 before 1.2.1 and SUSE Studio Extension for System z 1.2 before 1.2.1, allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands as demonstrated by "double quotes in kiwi_oemtitle of .profile."
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in kiwi before 4.85.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via unsanitized input in the kiwi_oemtitle parameter within .profile files. The lack of input validation on this parameter permits shell metacharacters to be injected and executed.
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<= 4.85= 1.2= 1.2CVSS 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.
-
Determine installed Kiwi versionRun 'kiwi --version' or check the kiwi package version via the system package manager (e.g., rpm -qi kiwi, dpkg -l kiwi, zypper se kiwi)Affected if The installed version is 4.85 or earlier (any version <= 4.85)
-
Locate .profile files processed by KiwiSearch for .profile files in Kiwi image building directories or within generated system images. Inspect these files for the presence of the 'kiwi_oemtitle' parameterAffected if A .profile file contains a kiwi_oemtitle parameter with unsanitized user-controlled input
-
Check for kiwi_oemtitle parameter usageGrep for 'kiwi_oemtitle' in any .profile, configuration, or template files used by Kiwi (e.g., grep -r 'kiwi_oemtitle' /path/to/kiwi/config or similar locations)Affected if The parameter exists and accepts raw input without shell metacharacter filtering
-
Identify SUSE Studio Onsite versionCheck the installed version of the 'suse-studio-onsite' package via the system package managerAffected if Version 1.2 is installed (exactly version 1.2)
-
Identify SUSE Studio Extension for System Z versionCheck the installed version of the 'suse-studio-extension-system-z' or similar package via the system package managerAffected if Version 1.2 is installed (exactly version 1.2)
You are affected if Kiwi version is 4.85 or earlier, OR SUSE Studio Onsite 1.2 is installed, OR SUSE Studio Extension for System Z 1.2 is installed, AND .profile files with kiwi_oemtitle parameter are being processed.
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 4.85.1 or later, or apply the vendor patches for SUSE Studio Onsite 1.2.1 and SUSE Studio Extension for System z 1.2.1. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict access to the affected kiwi functionality and sanitize .profile inputs.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4192 — 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-2011-4192 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