CVE-2016-7076
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 · uneditedsudo before version 1.8.18p1 is vulnerable to a bypass in the sudo noexec restriction if application run via sudo executed wordexp() C library function with a user supplied argument. A local user permitted to run such application via sudo with noexec restriction could possibly use this flaw to execute arbitrary commands with elevated 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 confidencesudo before 1.8.18p1 contains a bypass of the noexec restriction when applications execute the wordexp() C library function with user-controlled input. This allows permitted local users to spawn arbitrary processes with elevated privileges by tricking noexec-protected applications into indirect command execution through wordexp().
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>= 1.6.8, <= 1.8.18CVSS 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 installed sudo versionRun `sudo -V` and look for the version number in the output, or use `dpkg -l sudo` (Debian) / `rpm -q sudo` (RHEL) to get the installed package versionAffected if The version is between 1.6.8 and 1.8.18 inclusive (versions < 1.8.18p1 are vulnerable)
-
Identify if noexec is configuredRun `sudo -l` to list your sudo permissions, or inspect /etc/sudoers and any files in /etc/sudoers.d/ for lines containing 'noexec'Affected if noexec is present in the sudoers configuration, meaning commands are protected against indirect execution via wordexp()
-
Identify scripts using wordexp() with sudoSearch common script directories and sudo-defined command paths for usage of wordexp() function. Use `grep -r 'wordexp' /path/to/sudo/commands` where the path is from `sudo -l` outputAffected if Any permitted command or script invokes wordexp() with user-controlled input and is protected by noexec
You are affected if your sudo version is between 1.6.8 and 1.8.18, you have noexec configured, and a command or script you can run via sudo uses wordexp() with user input.
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 sudo to version 1.8.18p1 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, audit sudo configurations to identify and restrict any commands using wordexp(), or consider using alternative execution controls.
- 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-2016-7076 — 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-2016-7076 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