Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2018-10995
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 · uneditedSchedMD Slurm before 17.02.11 and 17.1x.x before 17.11.7 mishandles user names (aka user_name fields) and group ids (aka gid fields).
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 confidenceSchedMD Slurm contains a vulnerability in how it processes user_name and gid fields in user/group handling. The flaw allows improper handling of these identity fields, potentially leading to authorization or privilege issues. The vulnerability affects versions before 17.02.11 and 17.11.7 in the 17.x release trains.
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
= 8.0= 9.0<= 17.02.10.1= 17.11.0.0= 17.11.0.1= 17.11.1.1= 17.11.1.2= 17.11.2.1= 17.11.3.1= 17.11.3.2= 17.11.4.1= 17.11.5.1= 17.11.6.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 the installed Slurm versionRun 'slurmctld --version' or 'slurmd --version' to obtain the version number of the Slurm controller and/or compute node daemonAffected if The version returned is less than 17.02.11 in the 17.02.x train, or less than 17.11.7 in the 17.11.x train, or matches any of these: 17.11.0.0, 17.11.0.1, 17.11.1.1, 17.11.1.2, 17.11.2.1, 17.11.3.1, 17.11.3.2, 17.11.4.1, 17.11.5.1, or 17.11.6.1
-
Check Slurm package version via package managerOn Debian-based systems run 'dpkg -l | grep slurm' or 'apt list --installed | grep slurm' to list installed Slurm packages and their versionsAffected if The package version matches the affected version ranges listed above (versions before 17.02.11 or before 17.11.7 in the 17.x trains)
-
Verify Slurm daemon is running and accessibleRun 'scontrol --version' to get the version information from the scontrol utility which communicates with the Slurm controllerAffected if The version displayed is within the affected ranges (any 17.02.x version before 17.02.11, or any 17.11.x version before 17.11.7)
You are affected if any Slurm component (slurmctld, slurmd, scontrol) reports a version in the 17.x train that is either 17.02.10.1 or lower, or between 17.11.0.0 and 17.11.6.1 inclusive.
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 Slurm to version 17.02.11 or later for the 17.02.x train, or 17.11.7 or later for the 17.1x.x train. Verify proper user and group identity handling after upgrade.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10995 — 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-2018-10995 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