Gluster StorageApplication · Redhat
CVE-2015-1795
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 · uneditedRed Hat Gluster Storage RPM Package 3.2 allows local users to gain privileges and execute arbitrary code as root.
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 confidenceA local privilege escalation vulnerability in Red Hat Gluster Storage RPM Package 3.2 allows local users to gain elevated privileges and execute arbitrary code with root access. The specific vulnerability mechanism (e.g., improper file permissions, symlink race, or insecure configuration) is not detailed in available references.
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
Gluster StorageApplication
= 3.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Gluster Storage versionRun 'rpm -q glusterfs-server' or 'rpm -qa | grep gluster' to list installed Gluster packages and their version numbersAffected if The installed version is exactly 3.2 (e.g., glusterfs-server-3.2.x)
-
Verify Gluster binary file permissionsRun 'ls -la /usr/sbin/gluster*' and 'ls -la /usr/bin/gluster*' to list ownership and permissions on Gluster executablesAffected if Any Gluster binary is owned by an unexpected user or has permissions wider than 755 (e.g., world-writable or setuid without justification)
-
Check Gluster configuration directory permissionsRun 'ls -la /var/lib/glusterd' and 'ls -la /etc/glusterfs' to inspect permissions on Gluster data and config directoriesAffected if Directories are writable by non-root users or owned by an unexpected user
-
Audit recent Gluster file modificationsRun 'find /usr/sbin/gluster* -type f -mtime -30 -ls' to list Gluster executables modified in the last 30 daysAffected if Any Gluster binaries were recently modified without documented reason
-
Detect unauthorized Gluster service accountsRun 'id gluster 2>/dev/null' or check /etc/passwd for Gluster-specific user accounts that should not existAffected if Unexpected service accounts exist beyond the standard Gluster daemon user
A system is affected if it runs Red Hat Gluster Storage version 3.2 with incorrectly set permissions on Gluster binaries or directories that could allow a local user to escalate 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 dataApply the relevant Red Hat security patch or update to Gluster Storage to a version that addresses CVE-2015-1795, and verify that file permissions on Gluster-related directories and binaries are correctly set to prevent unauthorized access.
Fix this in Gluster Storage
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1795 — 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-2015-1795 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