Ubuntu LinuxOperating system · Canonical
CVE-2015-1341
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 · uneditedAny Python module in sys.path can be imported if the command line of the process triggering the coredump is Python and the first argument is -m in Apport before 2.19.2 function _python_module_path.
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 confidenceIn Apport before 2.19.2, the _python_module_path function improperly validates module paths when processing coredumps from Python processes started with the -m flag. This allows any Python module in sys.path to be imported during crash report generation, potentially enabling local privilege escalation if Apport runs with elevated privileges.
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
= 12.04= 14.04= 15.04= 15.10
ApportApplication
< 2.19.2CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 Apport is installedRun 'dpkg -l apport' on Debian/Ubuntu systems or 'rpm -q apport' on RHEL-based systemsAffected if Apport package is not installed or returned package not found, then not affected
-
Determine installed Apport versionRun 'dpkg -s apport | grep Version' or 'apport-cli --version' or 'apport-bug --version'Affected if Version is less than 2.19.2 (e.g., 2.14.1, 2.18.x, etc.)
-
Check if Apport binary has setuid privilegesRun 'ls -la /usr/bin/apport' or 'ls -la /usr/lib/apport/apport' to check for 's' in permissions (e.g., -rwsr-sr-x)Affected if Apport has setuid root permissions (first 's' in -rwsr-sr-x) AND version is below 2.19.2
-
Verify crash reporting is enabledCheck 'cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern' or look for 'enabled=1' in /etc/default/apportAffected if Core pattern points to Apport (contains 'apport') or /etc/default/apport has enabled=1
-
Confirm the vulnerable _python_module_path function existsRun 'grep -r _python_module_path /usr/lib/python*/dist-packages/apport/' or inspect Apport's Python files in /usr/share/apport/Affected if Function _python_module_path is found in Apport code (indicating vulnerable code path)
You are affected if Apport is installed with a version prior to 2.19.2, runs with elevated (setuid) privileges, and crash reporting is enabled.
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 data2.19.2
Upgrade Apport to version 2.19.2 or later. As a temporary workaround, restrict who can trigger Apport crash reporting or disable automatic crash reporting in high-security environments.
Fix this in Ubuntu Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1341 — 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-2015-1341 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