CVE-2014-0470
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 · uneditedsuper.c in Super 3.30.0 does not check the return value of the setuid function when the -F flag is set, which allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors, aka an RLIMIT_NPROC attack.
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 confidenceIn Super 3.30.0, super.c fails to check the return value of setuid() when the -F flag is used. When setuid() fails (such as when RLIMIT_NPROC is exceeded), the program continues executing without properly handling the failure, potentially leaving the process with elevated privileges. This allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.
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= 3.30.0CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/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.
-
Identify Super installation and versionRun 'super --version' or check the binary at /usr/bin/super, /usr/local/bin/super to confirm version 3.30.0 is installedAffected if The installed version is exactly 3.30.0
-
Check if -F flag is availableRun 'super --help' or 'super -F --help' to verify the -F flag exists in this versionAffected if The -F flag is present and documented in the help output
-
Verify setuid capabilityCheck if the super binary has the setuid bit set using 'ls -l /path/to/super' and examine its permissionsAffected if The super binary is setuid root or otherwise capable of elevating privileges
-
Assess RLIMIT_NPROC conditionsCheck current RLIMIT_NPROC settings with 'ulimit -u' and verify if the limit could be reached in your environmentAffected if RLIMIT_NPROC is set to a low value that could be exceeded, causing setuid() to fail
-
Check for active super configurationsReview /etc/super.tab or similar configuration files, and check sudoers or scripts that invoke super with the -F flagAffected if Super is configured to use the -F flag in any sudoers entry, script, or configuration file
You are affected if Super version 3.30.0 is installed, the -F flag can be invoked, and conditions exist where setuid() could fail (such as RLIMIT_NPROC being exceeded) causing the program to continue with elevated 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 dataUpgrade to a version of Super that properly checks and handles setuid() return values, or patch the code to check setuid() return and exit appropriately on failure.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0470 — 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-2014-0470 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