CVE-2014-3684
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 tm_adopt function in lib/Libifl/tm.c in Terascale Open-Source Resource and Queue Manager (aka TORQUE Resource Manager) 5.0.x, 4.5.x, 4.2.x, and earlier does not validate that the owner of the process also owns the adopted session id, which allows remote authenticated users to kill arbitrary processes via a crafted executable.
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 confidenceThe tm_adopt function in TORQUE Resource Manager's lib/Libifl/tm.c fails to validate that the process owner matches the session ID being adopted. This allows any authenticated remote user to kill arbitrary processes on the system by crafting an executable that exploits this missing authorization check.
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= 4.2.3= 4.2.3.1= 4.2.4= 4.2.4.1= 4.2.5= 4.2.6= 4.2.6.1= 4.2.7= 4.2.8= 4.2.9= 5.0.0-1_43d8f09aCVSS 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
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/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 TORQUE installation and binary locationsRun 'which pbs_server' or 'which torque' to locate the TORQUE binaries. Also check for lib/Libifl/tm.c in source if compiled from source.Affected if TORQUE binaries are found on the system.
-
Determine installed TORQUE versionRun 'pbs_server --version' or check the package version via 'rpm -q torque' / 'dpkg -l torque' depending on OS.Affected if The version matches any of: 4.2.3, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.6.1, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9, or 5.0.0-1_43d8f09a.
-
Verify the tm_adopt function is in useCheck if the pbs_server daemon is running via 'ps aux | grep pbs_server' and if the tm library (libtm.so or similar) is present in the TORQUE lib directory.Affected if The pbs_server process is active and the tm library is loaded, enabling the vulnerable tm_adopt function.
-
Confirm remote authentication is enabledCheck TORQUE configuration file (typically torque.cfg or server_priv/acl_svr) for allow new connections from remote hosts and examine if authenticate users are permitted.Affected if Remote user authentication is configured and accepted by the TORQUE server.
If TORQUE Resource Manager is installed and running with a version matching the affected list, and remote authenticated users can connect, the environment is vulnerable to unauthorized process termination via the tm_adopt function.
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 dataApply the vendor patch to add proper session ownership validation in the tm_adopt function, ensuring only the legitimate process owner can adopt and manipulate that session.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3684 — 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-2014-3684 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