CVE-2017-5180
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 before 0.9.44.4 and 0.9.38.x LTS before 0.9.38.8 LTS does not consider the .Xauthority case during its attempt to prevent accessing user files with an euid of zero, which allows local users to conduct sandbox-escape attacks via vectors involving a symlink and the --private option.
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 before 0.9.44.4 and 0.9.38.x LTS before 0.9.38.8 LTS fails to properly handle case variations of the .Xauthority file when enforcing restrictions on accessing user files with euid zero. This case-sensitivity bypass allows a local attacker to escape the sandbox by using a symlink combined with the --private option to access the .Xauthority file that should be protected.
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< 0.9.44.4>= 0.9.38, < 0.9.38.8CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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 Firejail versionRun `firejail --version` or check your package manager for the installed firejail package versionAffected if Version is before 0.9.44.4 (for 0.9.x releases) or before 0.9.38.8 (for 0.9.38.x LTS releases)
-
Identify if Firejail is invoked with the --private optionReview how Firejail is launched in your environment: check shell scripts, systemd units, or application launchers that invoke firejail with the --private flagAffected if Firejail is run with the --private option and the version is vulnerable
-
Check for .Xauthority file handling in sandboxed profilesInspect the active Firejail profile (typically in /etc/firejail/ or ~/.config/firejail/) for .Xauthority rules and whether private mode is configuredAffected if A profile uses --private or --private= and the Firejail version is in the affected range
-
Verify if sandbox runs with elevated privilegesCheck if the sandboxed process runs as root (euid zero) by examining the firejail invocation environment or process privilegesAffected if The sandbox runs with root privileges (euid 0) while using a vulnerable Firejail version with --private option
You are affected if you run Firejail versions 0.9.38 through 0.9.38.7 LTS or 0.9.39 through 0.9.44.3 with the --private option enabled and the sandbox operates with root privileges.
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 data0.9.38.80.9.44.4
Upgrade Firejail to version 0.9.44.4 or 0.9.38.8 LTS (or later) to patch the case-sensitivity bypass in .Xauthority file handling.
- 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-2017-5180 — 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-2017-5180 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