CVE-2011-4609
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 · uneditedThe svc_run function in the RPC implementation in glibc before 2.15 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a large number of RPC connections.
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 svc_run function in glibc's RPC implementation before version 2.15 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability where a remote attacker can cause excessive CPU consumption by establishing a large number of RPC connections, leading to denial of service.
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<= 2.14= 2.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.0.6= 2.1= 2.1.1= 2.1.1.6= 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check installed glibc versionRun `ldd --version` or check the libc.so file with `ls -l /lib/libc.so.*` or `/lib64/libc.so.*`. The version is typically displayed in the first line output.Affected if The version is 2.14 or lower, or matches any of these specific versions: 2.0 through 2.0.6, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.1.6, or 2.1.2.
-
Verify RPC service daemon is runningCheck if rpcbind or portmap is running with `ps aux | grep -E 'rpcbind|portmap'` or by querying the RPC service with `rpcinfo -p localhost`.Affected if The RPC service daemon (rpcbind or portmap) is actively running on the system.
-
Confirm RPC ports are listening on the networkRun `netstat -tulpn | grep -E '111|rpc'` or `ss -tulpn | grep -E '111|rpc'` to see if RPC-related ports are bound to network interfaces.Affected if RPC ports (especially port 111) are listening on non-loopback interfaces, exposing the service to network attackers.
The system is affected if it runs a vulnerable glibc version (2.14 or lower, or the specific 2.0.x/2.1.x versions listed) AND has an RPC service daemon exposed on the network.
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 glibc to version 2.15 or later to patch the vulnerable svc_run function. For systems that cannot immediately upgrade, consider firewalling RPC services or limiting RPC connection rates.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
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 locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-4609 — 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-2011-4609 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