CVE-2015-1865
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 · uneditedfts.c in coreutils 8.4 allows local users to delete arbitrary files.
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 vulnerability in the fts.c file tree traversal component of coreutils 8.4 allows local users to delete arbitrary files on the system. The vulnerability likely involves improper handling of symbolic links or race conditions during directory traversal, enabling a local attacker with low privileges to remove files they should not have access to.
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= 8.4CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Identify the installed coreutils versionRun 'coreutils --version' or 'ls -l /bin/cp /bin/rm /bin/mv' and then 'stat' on the binary to find the version compiled into it, or use 'rpm -q coreutils' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -l coreutils' (Debian)Affected if The version reported is exactly 8.4
-
Verify the specific coreutils binariesRun 'cp --version', 'rm --version', and 'mv --version' to check the version strings embedded in the individual utilities that use the fts componentAffected if Any of these utilities report version 8.4
-
Check if recursive directory operations are in useReview cron jobs, scripts, or automated tasks that run commands like 'rm -rf', 'cp -r', 'chmod -R' on directories writable by low-privilege usersAffected if Recursive traversal commands operate on directories with symlinks controlled by or accessible to untrusted local users
-
Audit for recent unauthorized file deletionsSearch system logs (auth.log, syslog, or journalctl) for unexpected 'unlink' or 'remove' events, or check directory access logs for deletions outside expected patternsAffected if Files were deleted by unprivileged users outside expected application behavior
-
Inspect for malicious symlinks in writable directoriesExamine directories where untrusted users can create files for symlinks pointing to sensitive system files (check with 'ls -la' and 'file' on any symlinks found)Affected if Symlinks exist in user-writable directories pointing to system files that should not be deletable by that user
You are affected if coreutils version 8.4 is installed AND untrusted local users can trigger recursive directory operations (such as rm -rf, cp -r) on directories containing symlinks they control.
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 dataUpdate coreutils to a version newer than 8.4 that includes the patch for this vulnerability. Restrict local user permissions and monitor for suspicious file deletion activity in the interim.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1865 — 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-2015-1865 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