FirejailWordPress extension · Firejail Project
CVE-2016-10119
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 · uneditedFirejail uses 0777 permissions when mounting /tmp, which allows local users to gain privileges.
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 confidenceFirejail, a sandbox application, creates a mount of /tmp with overly permissive 0777 (world-readable/writable) permissions. This allows any local user on the system to read, write, or manipulate files within that /tmp mount, potentially enabling privilege escalation by interfering with files created by other users in sandboxed environments.
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
FirejailWordPress extension
all versionsCVSS 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.
-
Verify Firejail is installedRun `which firejail` or check your package manager for the firejail packageAffected if Firejail is installed on the system
-
Check the Firejail versionRun `firejail --version` to identify which version is installedAffected if Any version of Firejail is installed, as all versions are affected according to the CVE
-
Identify Firejail profiles that mount /tmpExamine Firejail profile files in /etc/firejail/ or ~/.config/firejail/ for 'mount tmpfs /tmp' or similar directives that create a /tmp mountAffected if A profile with /tmp mounting is in use
-
Test /tmp mount permissions during sandbox executionRun a firejail command with a profile that mounts /tmp, then from another terminal check the mount permissions using `mount | grep 'on /tmp'` or inspect /tmp permissions inside the sandboxAffected if The /tmp mount shows 0777 permissions (world-readable/writable)
-
Check for existing sandboxed processesLook for running firejail processes using `ps aux | grep firejail` and inspect their /tmp mount behaviorAffected if Firejail sandboxes are active and their /tmp mounts have permissive 0777 permissions
A system is affected if Firejail is installed and is used to create sandboxes where /tmp is mounted with 0777 permissions, allowing any local user to access files in those /tmp directories.
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 dataModify the Firejail source code to use restrictive permissions (such as 1777 with sticky bit or 0755) when mounting /tmp, ensuring only the sandboxed user can access their /tmp directory.
Fix this in Firejail
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10119 — 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-2016-10119 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