CVE-2012-3490
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 (1) my_popenv_impl and (2) my_spawnv functions in src/condor_utils/my_popen.cpp and the (3) systemCommand function in condor_vm-gahp/vmgahp_common.cpp in Condor 7.6.x before 7.6.10 and 7.8.x before 7.8.4 does not properly check the return value of setuid calls, which might cause a subprocess to be created with root privileges and allow remote attackers to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceThree functions (my_popenv_impl, my_spawnv, and systemCommand) in Condor's process spawning code fail to check the return value of setuid() calls, which can cause subprocesses to be created with root privileges when setuid fails silently. This allows remote attackers to potentially gain elevated privileges.
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>= 7.6.0, < 7.6.10>= 7.8.0, < 7.8.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Identify HTCondor installation and versionRun 'condor_version' or 'condor_q -version' to get the installed HTCondor version. On RPM-based systems, also try 'rpm -q htcondor'. On Debian-based systems, try 'dpkg -l | grep condor'.Affected if The version output shows a version >= 7.6.0 and < 7.6.10, or >= 7.8.0 and < 7.8.4
-
Confirm the condor daemon is runningRun 'ps aux | grep condor' or 'systemctl status condor' (or 'service condor status' on older systems) to check if the HTCondor daemon is active.Affected if The condor_master, condor_schedd, or other condor processes are running on the system
-
Check if the system uses root privileges with CondorExamine Condor configuration files (typically in /etc/condor/ or /etc/condor/config.d/) for settings like RUNAS_OWNER, SETUID, or check if Condor is configured to execute jobs as root. Also check if the condor user has root privileges or if UID_TABLE is in use.Affected if Condor is configured to run jobs as root or use setuid execution, or the condor user has elevated privileges on the system
-
Verify the specific affected components are in useReview Condor job submissions and check if any jobs or DAGs use the system() call, popen(), or spawn functions in custom user scripts that might invoke the affected my_popenv_impl, my_spawnv, or systemCommand functions.Affected if The environment uses custom scripts or DAG node scripts that invoke process spawning functions that would trigger the vulnerable code paths
The environment is affected if HTCondor is installed with a version in the range 7.6.0 to 7.6.9, or 7.8.0 to 7.8.3, and the condor daemon is running with potential setuid or root execution privileges.
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 data7.6.107.8.4
Upgrade to Condor 7.6.10, 7.8.4, or later versions which contain proper error handling for setuid return values.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3490 — 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-2012-3490 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