CVE-2018-16883
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 · uneditedsssd versions from 1.13.0 to before 2.0.0 did not properly restrict access to the infopipe according to the "allowed_uids" configuration parameter. If sensitive information were stored in the user directory, this could be inadvertently disclosed to local attackers.
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 confidenceSSSD versions 1.13.0 through 2.0.0 failed to properly enforce the 'allowed_uids' configuration parameter on the infopipe interface, allowing local attackers to bypass intended access controls and potentially retrieve sensitive user directory information they should not have access to.
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>= 1.13.0, < 2.0.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check installed SSSD versionRun 'sssd --version' or 'rpm -q sssd' to determine the installed version numberAffected if The version is 1.13.0 or higher but lower than 2.0.0
-
Verify SSSD service is runningRun 'systemctl status sssd' or check if the sssd process is activeAffected if SSSD is actively running - the vulnerability only applies when SSSD is running and the infopipe interface is accessible
-
Locate SSSD configuration fileInspect /etc/sssd/sssd.conf for the presence of an 'infopipe' section or 'allowed_uids' parameterAffected if The infopipe interface is enabled and allowed_uids contains overly permissive values (such as 0, or includes UIDs of non-admin users)
-
Review allowed_uids settingsExamine the allowed_uids parameter in the [infopipe] section of sssd.conf to see which UIDs are permitted to access user informationAffected if The allowed_uids setting permits access to UID 0 (root) or includes UIDs beyond what the system administrator intended, allowing unauthorized users to query the infopipe interface
A system is affected if SSSD version 1.13.0 to <2.0.0 is installed and running with the infopipe interface enabled and misconfigured allowed_uids permissions.
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 data2.0.0
Upgrade SSSD to version 2.0.0 or later where the access control is properly enforced, and verify the 'allowed_uids' configuration contains only the necessary UIDs.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-16883 — 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-2018-16883 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