FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2012-5630
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 · uneditedlibuser 0.56 and 0.57 has a TOCTOU (time-of-check time-of-use) race condition when copying and removing directory trees.
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 confidencelibuser versions 0.56 and 0.57 contain a TOCTOU (time-of-check time-of-use) race condition vulnerability when copying and removing directory trees. This class of flaw allows an attacker to manipulate filesystem state between the time a program checks a condition (such as file permissions or existence) and when it acts on that check, potentially causing the program to operate on unintended files or directories.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 18
Enterprise LinuxOperating system
= 5.0= 6.0= 0.57= 0.58CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Check if libuser is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep libuser' on Red Hat/Fedora systems, or check for libuser package via package manager on other systemsAffected if libuser package is not found (not installed) - proceed to next checks if it is installed
-
Identify installed libuser versionRun 'rpm -q libuser' or 'rpm -qi libuser' to get the exact version numberAffected if Version is 0.56, 0.57, or 0.58 - these are within the affected ranges listed in the CVE
-
Confirm Fedora or RHEL version if applicableRun 'cat /etc/fedora-release' or 'cat /etc/redhat-release' to check the OS versionAffected if Running Fedora 18, RHEL 5.0, or RHEL 6.0 in combination with affected libuser versions
-
Check for applications using libuser directory functionsReview application logs and code that utilize libuser's directory copy/removal functions (such as useradd, groupmod operations that handle home directories)Affected if Applications perform directory tree operations (copy/removal) using libuser functions and libuser version is within affected range
A system is affected if libuser version 0.56, 0.57, or 0.58 is installed on Fedora 18, RHEL 5.0, or RHEL 6.0, and applications use libuser's directory manipulation functions for copying or removing directory trees.
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 dataUpdate libuser to a patched version. If an updated package is unavailable, review applications using libuser's directory manipulation functions for alternative protections such as operating in isolated directories with restricted permissions.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-5630 — 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-2012-5630 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