CVE-2017-10708
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Apport through 2.20.x. In apport/report.py, Apport sets the ExecutablePath field and it then uses the path to run package specific hooks without protecting against path traversal. This allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted .crash file.
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 confidenceApport crash reporting tool through version 2.20.x has a path traversal vulnerability in apport/report.py. When Apport processes a .crash file, it uses the ExecutablePath field to locate and run package-specific hooks without validating the path, allowing attackers to manipulate the path to execute arbitrary code.
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<= 2.20.6CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 Apport versionRun 'dpkg -l apport' on Debian/Ubuntu systems, or 'rpm -qi apport' on RHEL/Fedora systems, or 'apport-cli --version' if installed. Also check apport/report.py file version comments if accessible.Affected if The installed version is 2.20.6 or earlier (any version <= 2.20.6).
-
Verify Apport crash handling is enabledCheck Apport configuration in /etc/apport/crashdb.conf or /etc/apport/apport.conf for 'enabled=1' or similar settings. Also check if the apport service/daemon is active: 'systemctl status apport' or 'service apport status'.Affected if Apport is installed and crash processing is enabled (not explicitly disabled).
-
Confirm hook execution path processingInspect /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/apport/report.py (or corresponding Python 3 path) for the function that processes ExecutablePath and executes hooks. Look for code that uses ExecutablePath to construct hook paths without path validation (e.g., no os.path.normpath or similar sanitization).Affected if The report.py file exists and contains hook execution logic using ExecutablePath without proper path traversal protection.
A system is affected if Apport version <= 2.20.6 is installed AND crash reporting is enabled, allowing untrusted .crash files to trigger arbitrary code execution via path traversal in hook execution.
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 dataApply the vendor patch which adds path traversal protection to ensure the ExecutablePath and hook paths are properly validated/sanitized before use. Until patched, avoid opening untrusted .crash files.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10708 — 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-2017-10708 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