CVE-2017-14483
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 · uneditedflower.initd in the Gentoo dev-python/flower package before 0.9.1-r1 for Celery Flower sets PID file ownership to a non-root account, which might allow local users to kill arbitrary processes by leveraging access to this non-root account for PID file modification before a root script executes a "kill `cat /pathname`" command.
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 confidenceThe Gentoo dev-python/flower package's init script (flower.initd) creates a PID file with ownership set to a non-root account. A local user with access to this account can modify the PID file to point to any process ID on the system. When the init script runs as root and executes 'kill $(cat /pathname)', it will terminate the arbitrary process specified in the modified PID file, enabling local privilege escalation to kill root-owned processes.
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<= 0.9.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 flower versionRun `emerge -p dev-python/flower` or `equery list dev-python/flower` to list installed version. Alternatively, check `/var/lib/portage/world` or package database.Affected if Version is 0.9.1 or lower (unmasked) or <= 0.9.1-r1 (any ebuild revision)
-
Locate the init scriptCheck for `/etc/init.d/flower` or the init script path referenced in the Flower package. Run `find /etc -name '*flower*' -o -name '*flower*' 2>/dev/null`.Affected if The init script exists on the system
-
Identify the PID file pathExamine the init script content (e.g., `cat /etc/init.d/flower`) and look for PIDFILE or pidfile variable assignments. Common paths include `/var/run/flower.pid` or `/run/flower.pid`.Affected if A PID file path is defined in the init script
-
Verify PID file ownership and permissionsRun `ls -la <PID_FILE_PATH>` to check owner, group, and permissions. If the file does not exist yet, check the directory permissions: `ls -ld $(dirname <PID_FILE_PATH>)`.Affected if The PID file or its directory is owned by a non-root user or is world/group-writable, allowing modification by local non-root accounts
If flower version is 0.9.1 or lower AND the PID file or its directory is writable by non-root users, the system is vulnerable to local privilege escalation via process termination.
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 dev-python/flower to version 0.9.1-r1 or later, which corrects the PID file ownership to root. Alternatively, ensure the PID file directory has restricted permissions to prevent unauthorized modification.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14483 — 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-2017-14483 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