Enterprise Virtualization ManagerOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2012-0860
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 · uneditedMultiple untrusted search path vulnerabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager (RHEV-M) before 3.1, when adding a host, allow local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse (1) deployUtil.py or (2) vds_bootstrap.py Python module in /tmp/.
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 confidenceRHEV-M before version 3.1 has an untrusted search path vulnerability when adding hosts. The management process imports Python modules (deployUtil.py or vds_bootstrap.py) from /tmp without validating their origin. A local attacker can place a malicious version of these modules in /tmp, which will be executed with elevated privileges when the host addition process runs.
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
Enterprise Virtualization ManagerOperating system
<= 3.0= 2.1= 2.2= 2.2.3CVSS 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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:H/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 RHEV-M versionRun: rhevm-tool --version or check /usr/share/rhevm/VERSION file. Also: rpm -q rhevm-managerAffected if Version is 3.0 or earlier, or 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.3 (any version before 3.1)
-
Check if host addition feature is configuredReview RHEV-M admin portal or run: rhevm-manage-domains -l 2>/dev/null. Check if any hosts are managed or pending addition.Affected if RHEV-M is actively managing hosts or host addition has been performed
-
Check /tmp permissions and mount optionsRun: mount | grep /tmp and ls -lad /tmp. Verify if noexec option is present and permissions are 1777 or less restrictive.Affected if The noexec mount option is NOT set on /tmp, allowing execution of files placed there by unprivileged users
-
Check for Python modules in /tmpRun: ls -la /tmp/deployUtil.py /tmp/vds_bootstrap.py 2>/dev/nullAffected if Either deployUtil.py or vds_bootstrap.py exists in /tmp with suspicious ownership or modification timestamp
You are affected if RHEV-M version is 3.0 or earlier and the host addition feature is used, especially if /tmp lacks noexec protection.
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 dataPrimary remediation is upgrading to RHEV-M 3.1 or later. As immediate mitigation, ensure /tmp is mounted with noexec option and has restrictive permissions to prevent untrusted users from placing files.
Fix this in Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0860 — 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-2012-0860 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