Ubuntu LinuxOperating system · Canonical
CVE-2014-3925
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 · uneditedsosreport in Red Hat sos 1.7 and earlier on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5 produces an archive with an fstab file potentially containing cleartext passwords, and lacks a warning about reviewing this archive to detect included passwords, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by leveraging access to a technical-support data stream.
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 sosreport tool (versions 1.7 and earlier) collects system configuration files for support diagnostics, but includes the /etc/fstab file which may contain cleartext passwords used for encrypted filesystems or network mounts. This sensitive data is archived without any warning to users about reviewing the archive for exposed credentials, potentially exposing passwords to anyone with access to the support data stream.
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
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 14.04= 15.04= 15.10
SosApplication
<= 1.7CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Verify sosreport is installedRun command: which sosreport or rpm -q sosreport (RHEL) or dpkg -l | grep sos (Ubuntu)Affected if sosreport tool is present on the system
-
Check sosreport versionRun command: sosreport --version 2>/dev/null or rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}' sosreportAffected if Version is 1.7 or earlier, or version cannot be determined (implies older)
-
Inspect /etc/fstab for credentialsExamine /etc/fstab for cleartext passwords in mount entries, particularly looking for passwords= or pass= fields, or credentials= parameters pointing to files containing passwordsAffected if File contains any cleartext passwords for encrypted filesystems or network mounts (CIFS, NFS with auth)
-
Locate existing sosreport archivesSearch common locations: /var/tmp, /tmp, or directory where support cases were created, looking for files named sosreport-*.tar.xz or sosreport-*.tar.bz2Affected if Any archived sosreports exist from version 1.7 or earlier that have not been reviewed and secured
A user is affected if sosreport version 1.7 or earlier is installed AND /etc/fstab contains cleartext passwords, meaning sensitive credentials may have been archived without warning.
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 dataOrganizations should either upgrade to a version of sos that filters passwords from fstab or adds prominent warnings, and immediately review any existing sosreport archives for exposed credentials.
Fix this in Ubuntu Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3925 — 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-2014-3925 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