CVE-2011-4355
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 · uneditedGNU Project Debugger (GDB) before 7.5, when .debug_gdb_scripts is defined, automatically loads certain files from the current working directory, which allows local users to gain privileges via crafted files such as Python scripts.
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 confidenceGDB before version 7.5 automatically loads script files from the current working directory when a binary contains a .debug_gdb_scripts section, allowing local attackers to place malicious script files (e.g., Python scripts) that execute with the privileges of the user running the debugger.
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<= 7.4.1= 4.18= 5.0= 5.0.92= 5.0.93= 5.1= 5.1.1= 5.2= 5.2.1= 5.3= 6.0= 6.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Check installed GDB versionRun 'gdb --version' or 'gdb -v' and note the version numberAffected if The version is 7.4.1 or lower, or matches any of these: 4.18, 5.0, 5.0.92, 5.0.93, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3, 6.0, or 6.1
-
Identify binaries with .debug_gdb_scripts sectionUse 'readelf -S <binary> | grep debug_gdb_scripts' on binaries you intend to debug, or scan with 'find /path -type f -exec readelf -S {} \; 2>/dev/null | grep debug_gdb_scripts'Affected if Any binary you debug contains a .debug_gdb_scripts section and you are using a vulnerable GDB version
-
Check for script files in common locationsLook for .gdbinit, .gdbinit.py, or Python script files in directories where you run GDB: 'ls -la .gdbinit*' and check current working directory contents before running GDBAffected if Script files exist in directories where you run GDB and you are using a vulnerable GDB version on a binary with .debug_gdb_scripts section
-
Verify GDB script auto-loading settingRun 'show script-prefix' in GDB to see where it loads scripts from, and check if 'set auto-load off' is not set in GDB configurationAffected if Auto-loading is enabled and scripts can be loaded from the current working directory
You are affected if you run a GDB version 7.4.1 or lower (or one of the older versions listed) and debug binaries containing a .debug_gdb_scripts section from directories that could contain attacker-controlled scripts.
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 GDB to version 7.5 or later; avoid running GDB from directories writable by untrusted users.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4355 — 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-2011-4355 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