dbcve.org
XfsprogsApplication · Sgi

CVE-2012-2150

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2015-08-25
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 3.2.3 or later.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
xfs_metadump in xfsprogs before 3.2.4 does not properly obfuscate file data, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading a generated image.

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 confidence

xfs_metadump in xfsprogs before 3.2.4 fails to properly obfuscate file data when creating metadata dumps of XFS filesystems, causing sensitive file contents to be exposed in generated images that should only contain metadata.

MitigationUpgrade xfsprogs to version 3.2.4 or later. Avoid using xfs_metadump on filesystems with sensitive data until the update is applied.

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
XfsprogsApplication
Affected:<= 3.2.3

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check xfsprogs installed version
    Run 'xfsprogs -V' or 'xfs_db -V' to display the version number of installed xfsprogs tools
    Affected if Version is 3.2.3 or earlier (any version <= 3.2.3)
  2. Verify xfs_metadump binary exists
    Check if the xfs_metadump tool is present on the system using 'which xfs_metadump' or 'ls -l /usr/sbin/xfs_metadump'
    Affected if The binary exists and the xfsprogs version is <= 3.2.3
  3. Identify XFS filesystems in use
    Run 'mount -t xfs' or 'grep xfs /proc/mounts' to list currently mounted XFS filesystems
    Affected if Any XFS filesystems are mounted and the xfsprogs version is <= 3.2.3, making metadump operations possible on these filesystems

You are affected if xfsprogs version is 3.2.3 or earlier and xfs_metadump could be run against XFS filesystems on this system.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 3.2.3
Interim mitigation

Upgrade xfsprogs to version 3.2.4 or later. Avoid using xfs_metadump on filesystems with sensitive data until the update is applied.

Fix this in Xfsprogs Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2150 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-2150 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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