CVE-2018-1000135
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 · uneditedGNOME NetworkManager version 1.10.2 and earlier contains a Information Exposure (CWE-200) vulnerability in DNS resolver that can result in Private DNS queries leaked to local network's DNS servers, while on VPN. This vulnerability appears to have been fixed in Some Ubuntu 16.04 packages were fixed, but later updates removed the fix. cf. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1754671 an upstream fix does not appear to be available at this time.
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 confidenceGNOME NetworkManager 1.10.2 and earlier contains an information exposure vulnerability where private DNS queries are leaked to the local network's DNS servers instead of being routed through the VPN tunnel. This occurs during VPN connections, exposing user browsing habits and potentially internal domain names to unauthorized network infrastructure.
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= 16.04<= 1.10.2CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Identify NetworkManager versionRun `nmcli --version` or check the package version using `dpkg -l network-manager` (Debian/Ubuntu) or `rpm -qi NetworkManager` (RHEL-based)Affected if The version returned is 1.10.2 or earlier
-
Confirm Ubuntu 16.04 deploymentRun `lsb_release -r` or check `/etc/lsb-release` to identify the Ubuntu release versionAffected if The system is running Ubuntu 16.04 (release version 16.04)
-
Verify active VPN configurationsRun `nmcli connection show` to list NetworkManager connections, then check for VPN profiles using `nmcli connection show | grep -i vpn`Affected if Any active VPN connection profiles exist on the system
-
Test for DNS leakage during VPN sessionConnect to a VPN, then run `resolvectl status` or `cat /etc/resolv.conf` to observe which DNS servers are being used; compare DNS queries sent to local network versus VPN-provided DNSAffected if DNS queries resolve to the local network gateway (e.g., ISP DNS or local router) instead of VPN-assigned DNS while the VPN tunnel is active
A system is affected if it runs Ubuntu 16.04 or NetworkManager version 1.10.2 or earlier and uses active VPN connections where DNS queries leak to the local network instead of the VPN tunnel.
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 vendor-provided patches (Ubuntu 16.04 specific packages) or implement alternative DNS configuration (such as configuring VPN-specific DNS resolvers) to prevent DNS leakage during VPN sessions.
- 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-2018-1000135 — 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-2018-1000135 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