Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2012-3409
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 · uneditedecryptfs-utils: suid helper does not restrict mounting filesystems with nosuid,nodev which creates a possible privilege escalation
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 confidenceThe ecryptfs-utils package contains a suid helper that permits mounting filesystems without enforcing the nosuid and nodev mount options, allowing untrusted filesystems to be mounted with potentially dangerous suid binaries or device files, creating a local privilege escalation vector.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0>= 86, < 99CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Verify ecryptfs-utils package is installedRun 'dpkg -l ecryptfs-utils' on Debian systems or 'rpm -q ecryptfs-utils' on RHEL-based systems to check if the package is presentAffected if The package is not installed at all, then not affected; if installed, continue to version check
-
Check installed ecryptfs-utils versionRun 'dpkg -s ecryptfs-utils | grep Version' or 'rpm -q --qf "%{VERSION}" ecryptfs-utils' to get the exact version numberAffected if Version is >= 86 and < 99 indicates a potentially vulnerable version; versions outside this range are not affected
-
Locate the ecryptfs mount helper binaryRun 'which mount.ecryptfs' or check common paths like /sbin/mount.ecryptfs, /usr/sbin/mount.ecryptfs to find the suid helper binaryAffected if If the mount helper binary does not exist, the vulnerability cannot be exploited
-
Verify if the mount helper has suid bit setRun 'ls -l /sbin/mount.ecryptfs' or 'ls -l /usr/sbin/mount.ecryptfs' and check for 's' in the owner execute field (e.g., '-rwsr-xr-x')Affected if The suid bit must be set for the privilege escalation to be exploitable; if the binary lacks the suid bit, the specific flaw cannot be triggered
User is affected if ecryptfs-utils version is between 86 and 99 inclusive AND the mount.ecryptfs helper binary exists with the suid bit set, allowing untrusted filesystems to be mounted without nosuid/nodev restrictions.
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 data99
Update ecryptfs-utils to a patched version that properly restricts mount operations to enforce nosuid,nodev options, or if the suid helper functionality is not required, remove or disable the suid bit from the helper binary.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3409 — 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-2012-3409 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