ReportbugApplication · Canonical
CVE-2014-0479
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 · uneditedreportbug before 6.4.4+deb7u1 and 6.5.x before 6.5.0+nmu1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via vectors related to compare_versions and reportbug/checkversions.py.
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 confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in the reportbug tool's compare_versions function within checkversions.py allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through version comparison operations.
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
ReportbugApplication
<= 6.5.0
ReportbugApplication
<= 6.4.4CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if reportbug is installedRun 'dpkg -l reportbug' on Debian/Ubuntu systems, or 'rpm -qa | grep reportbug' on RHEL-based systems, or check for the binary at /usr/bin/reportbugAffected if The package is not found (not installed)
-
Determine the installed reportbug versionRun 'reportbug --version' or 'dpkg -s reportbug' on Debian/Ubuntu, or 'rpm -qi reportbug' on RHEL-based systemsAffected if The version displayed is 6.5.0 or lower for Canonical/Ubuntu, or 6.4.4 or lower for Debian
-
Locate the checkversions.py moduleSearch for checkversions.py in the reportbug installation directory - common paths include /usr/share/reportbug/ or the Python site-packages directory for reportbugAffected if The file exists and contains a compare_versions function (indicating the vulnerable code path is present)
-
Verify the vulnerable function existsExamine checkversions.py for the compare_versions function definition and inspect how it handles version strings - look for use of shell commands or string evaluation with version inputAffected if The function uses shell execution (os.system, subprocess, or similar) on unsanitized version strings from user input
You are affected if reportbug is installed and the version is 6.5.0 or lower (Canonical/Ubuntu) or 6.4.4 or lower (Debian), with the checkversions.py module present and the compare_versions function using unsanitized input in shell commands.
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 reportbug to version 6.4.4+deb7u1 or 6.5.0+nmu1 or later to obtain the patched code. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict network access to the reportbug functionality and avoid processing untrusted version strings.
Fix this in Reportbug
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0479 — 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-2014-0479 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