CVE-2016-5759
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 · uneditedThe mkdumprd script called "dracut" in the current working directory "." allows local users to trick the administrator into executing 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 confidenceThe mkdumprd script invokes the dracut utility without using an absolute path, allowing an attacker with local user access to place a malicious dracut executable in a directory from which the administrator runs mkdumprd. When executed, this malicious binary runs with root privileges, enabling privilege escalation.
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= 12.0= 12.0= 42.1CVSS 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 mkdumprd is installedLocate the mkdumprd binary: run 'which mkdumprd' or 'find / -name mkdumprd 2>/dev/null'Affected if mkdumprd is not found on the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Examine how mkdumprd invokes dracutRead the mkdumprd script content: 'cat /sbin/mkdumprd' or 'cat $(which mkdumprd)' and search for lines calling dracut without an absolute path (e.g., look for 'dracut' instead of '/sbin/dracut' or '/usr/bin/dracut')Affected if The script calls dracut using a relative path or without a leading slash, making it vulnerable to PATH manipulation
-
Check the PATH variable for current directoryRun 'echo $PATH' and verify if the current working directory '.' appears in the PATH, especially before system directories like /sbin or /usr/sbinAffected if The PATH contains '.' or a writable directory before system paths, allowing an attacker to inject a malicious dracut executable
-
Verify dracut location and permissionsRun 'ls -la /sbin/dracut /usr/sbin/dracut 2>/dev/null' to confirm dracut exists at its expected absolute path locationAffected if dracut exists but mkdumprd does not reference it by absolute path, creating the vulnerable condition
A system is affected if mkdumprd is installed and it invokes dracut without an absolute path, and the PATH or the directory from which mkdumprd is run is writable by a local attacker.
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 dataEnsure mkdumprd uses an absolute path (e.g., /sbin/dracut) when invoking dracut, and avoid including the current working directory in the search path. Alternatively, ensure mkdumprd is only run from directories where non-root users cannot write files.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-5759 — 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-2016-5759 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