CVE-2015-3436
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 · uneditedprovider/server/ECServer.cpp in Zarafa Collaboration Platform (ZCP) before 7.1.13 and 7.2.x before 7.2.1 allows local users to write to arbitrary files via a symlink attack on /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock.
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 confidenceA local symlink vulnerability in Zarafa Collaboration Platform's ECServer component allows unprivileged local users to write to arbitrary files by creating a malicious symlink at /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock pointing to a target file, which the privileged upgrade process then writes 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<= 7.1.12= 7.2.0CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:C/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.
-
Check if Zarafa Collaboration Platform is installedLook for Zarafa packages or binaries on the system (e.g., rpm -qa | grep zarafa, dpkg -l | grep zarafa, or locate zarafa-related binaries)Affected if Zarafa software is present on the system
-
Determine the installed Zarafa versionUse the package manager or zarafa-specific command to query the version (e.g., rpm -qi zarafa, dpkg -s zarafa, or /usr/bin/zarafa-version if available) and compare against affected versions <=7.1.12 or =7.2.0Affected if The installed version is 7.1.12 or earlier, or exactly 7.2.0
-
Verify the ECServer component is in useCheck for ECServer process or service running on the system (e.g., ps aux | grep ECServer, or check for ecserver in running services)Affected if ECServer component is running or installed
-
Inspect the /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock fileCheck if /tmp/zarada-upgrade-lock exists and is a symlink pointing to an unintended target (ls -la /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock)Affected if The file /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock exists as a symlink pointing to a file outside the expected /tmp directory, or the file permissions allow unprivileged modification
A user is affected if Zarafa Collaboration Platform version 7.1.12 or earlier, or exactly version 7.2.0 is installed with the ECServer component, and the /tmp/zarafa-upgrade-lock symlink vulnerability is present.
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 dataUpgrade to Zarafa Collaboration Platform 7.1.13 or later, or 7.2.1 or later, which includes the fix for proper lock file validation to prevent symlink attacks.
- 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-2015-3436 — 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-2015-3436 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