CVE-2018-10858
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 · uneditedA heap-buffer overflow was found in the way samba clients processed extra long filename in a directory listing. A malicious samba server could use this flaw to cause arbitrary code execution on a samba client. Samba versions before 4.6.16, 4.7.9 and 4.8.4 are vulnerable.
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 confidenceA heap-buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Samba clients when processing directory listings containing extra long filenames. A malicious Samba server can exploit this flaw by sending specially crafted responses with overly long filenames, causing heap memory corruption and potentially leading to arbitrary code execution on the connected client.
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= 9.0= 14.04= 16.04= 18.04= 4.0= 4.0= 7.0= 7.0= 7.0< 4.6.16>= 4.7.0, < 4.7.9>= 4.8.0, < 4.8.4CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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.
-
Identify Samba client installationRun 'dpkg -l | grep samba' on Debian/Ubuntu or 'rpm -qa | grep samba' on Red Hat systems to list installed Samba packagesAffected if Any samba-client, smbclient, or libsmbclient package is installed
-
Determine Samba client versionExecute 'smbclient --version' or check the package version from the previous step (e.g., 'dpkg -s samba-client' or 'rpm -qi samba-client')Affected if Version is less than 4.6.16, OR between 4.7.0 and 4.7.9 inclusive, OR between 4.8.0 and 4.8.4 inclusive
-
Verify client usageCheck for active SMB/CIFS connections to external servers by reviewing mount points (/etc/fstab, /proc/mounts) or running 'smbstatus' if configuredAffected if The system connects to Samba servers, particularly untrusted or external ones, making it vulnerable to malicious server responses
A system is affected if it runs a Samba client version in the ranges < 4.6.16, 4.7.0-4.7.9, or 4.8.0-4.8.4 and connects to Samba servers that could send malicious directory listing responses.
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 data4.6.164.7.94.8.4
Upgrade Samba client installations to version 4.6.16, 4.7.9, 4.8.4 or later to resolve the heap-buffer overflow in directory listing processing. Alternatively, ensure only trusted Samba servers are connected to and consider network segmentation.
- Consultation4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10858 — 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-2018-10858 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