CVE-2018-12476
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 · uneditedRelative Path Traversal vulnerability in obs-service-tar_scm of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15; openSUSE Factory allows remote attackers with control over a repository to overwrite files on the machine of the local user if a malicious service is executed. This issue affects: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 obs-service-tar_scm versions prior to 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74:. openSUSE Factory obs-service-tar_scm versions prior to 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74.
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 relative path traversal vulnerability in obs-service-tar_scm allows remote attackers who control a repository to overwrite arbitrary files on the local user's machine by exploiting '..' sequences in file paths when a malicious service is executed.
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< 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 obs-service-tar_scm is installedCheck for the presence of the obs-service-tar_scm package using your system package manager (e.g., rpm -qa | grep tar_scm, dpkg -l | grep tar_scm, or zypper se tar_scm)Affected if The package is not installed on the system
-
Identify the installed versionRun the version command for the tar_scm service, typically found in the package metadata or by checking /usr/lib/obs/service/tar_scm version files if they exist, or via rpm -qi obs-service-tar_scmAffected if The displayed version number is lower than 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74
-
Check if the service processes external repositoriesReview OBS service configurations or logs to determine if tar_scm is being used to process repositories from untrusted or external sourcesAffected if The service is configured to handle repositories from sources you do not fully control
-
Inspect service execution logs for traversal attemptsExamine OBS service logs for any evidence of '..' sequences in file paths being processed by tar_scm, or audit recent service executions for unexpected file write operationsAffected if Log entries show '..' sequences in file paths or unexpected file writes outside expected directories
You are affected if obs-service-tar_scm is installed with a version lower than 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74 and the service processes repositories containing file paths with '..' sequences.
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 data0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74
Upgrade obs-service-tar_scm to version 0.9.2.1537788075.fefaa74 or later; additionally implement path validation to reject requests containing '..' traversal sequences.
- 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-2018-12476 — 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-2018-12476 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