Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2018-1086
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 · uneditedpcs before versions 0.9.164 and 0.10 is vulnerable to a debug parameter removal bypass. REST interface of the pcsd service did not properly remove the pcs debug argument from the /run_pcs query, possibly disclosing sensitive information. A remote attacker with a valid token could use this flaw to elevate their privilege.
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 pcsd REST interface fails to properly remove the debug argument from /run_pcs queries. An authenticated remote attacker with a valid token can exploit this bypass to access sensitive information or elevate privileges through improper debug parameter handling.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 9.0
Enterprise Linux Server EusOperating system
= 7.5= 7.6= 0.9.164= 0.10CVSS 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.
-
Verify pcs package is installedRun 'rpm -q pcs' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -l pcs' (Debian) to check if the pcs package is installedAffected if The package is not installed - the system does not have pcs and is not affected
-
Check installed pcs versionRun 'rpm -q --queryformat "%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}" pcs' (RHEL) or 'dpkg -s pcs' (Debian) to get the exact version numberAffected if Version matches 0.9.164 or 0.10 exactly, or the version is unknown and cannot be verified against the fixed releases
-
Confirm pcsd service statusRun 'systemctl status pcsd' or check if pcsd is listening on port 2224 (the pcsd REST interface port) using 'ss -tlnp | grep 2224'Affected if pcsd is actively running and exposing the REST interface - the vulnerability requires pcsd to be running
-
Check for debug parameter exposure in pcs configurationInspect /etc/pcs/pcsd.conf or look for debug-related settings in the pcs configuration directory at /etc/pcsd/Affected if Debug functionality is explicitly enabled in configuration files, which would allow the bypass to be exploited
The environment is affected only if pcs/pcsd is installed with version 0.9.164 or 0.10 (exact match) AND pcsd service is running with the REST interface exposed, as the vulnerability requires an active pcsd service to exploit the debug parameter bypass.
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 pcs to version 0.9.164 or 0.10 or later to remediate the debug parameter removal bypass vulnerability in the pcsd REST interface.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1086 — 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-2018-1086 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