FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2018-1090
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 · uneditedIn Pulp before version 2.16.2, secrets are passed into override_config when triggering a task and then become readable to all users with read access on the distributor/importer. An attacker with API access can then view these secrets.
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 confidenceIn Pulp before version 2.16.2, secrets passed into override_config when triggering a task are stored in plaintext and become readable to all users with read access on the distributor/importer. An authenticated attacker with API access can view these exposed secrets, leading to credential compromise.
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
FedoraOperating system
all versions
SatelliteApplication
= 6.4< 2.16.2CVSS 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 Pulp installation and versionRun 'rpm -q pulp-server' or check the installed pulp version via 'pulp-admin --version' or the API at /pulp/api/v3/status/Affected if The installed version is less than 2.16.2 (or if you cannot determine the version and Pulp is present)
-
Check for tasks using override_configQuery the Pulp database for task records containing the override_config field, or review task definitions submitted via the API at /pulp/api/v3/tasks/Affected if Any tasks exist that were triggered with override_config parameters containing sensitive values
-
Inspect stored task data for plaintext secretsExamine the task or worker_result database tables/records where override_config data is persisted, looking for unencrypted password, token, or secret field valuesAffected if Any task records display plaintext secrets (passwords, tokens, keys) in the override_config or related fields
-
Review user access controls on distributors/importersList all users with read permissions on distributors and importers using the API endpoint /pulp/api/v3/repositories/{repo_id}/distributors/ or /pulp/api/v3/repositories/{repo_id}/importers/Affected if Any user account exists that is not fully trusted and has read access to distributor or importer configurations
You are affected if Pulp version is below 2.16.2 AND any tasks were triggered using override_config with sensitive values that are now readable by users with read access on distributors/importers.
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 data2.16.2
Upgrade to Pulp 2.16.2 or later. Until then, restrict read access on distributors/importers to only trusted users and audit API access logs for unauthorized secret retrieval.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1090 — 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-2018-1090 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