CVE-2019-20044
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 Zsh before 5.8, attackers able to execute commands can regain privileges dropped by the --no-PRIVILEGED option. Zsh fails to overwrite the saved uid, so the original privileges can be restored by executing MODULE_PATH=/dir/with/module zmodload with a module that calls setuid().
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 Zsh before 5.8, the shell's --no-PRIVILEGED option fails to properly overwrite the saved UID when dropping privileges. This allows an attacker with command execution to restore their original elevated privileges by loading a malicious module via zmodload that calls setuid(), bypassing the intended privilege dropping mechanism.
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= 30= 31= 8.0= 9.0< 5.8< 13.5< 13.5< 10.15.5>= 10.13.0, < 10.13.6>= 10.14.0, < 10.14.6>= 10.15, < 10.15.5= 10.13.6= 10.14.6< 13.4.5< 6.2.5CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Zsh versionRun 'zsh --version' or 'zmodload' then 'echo $ZSH_VERSION' to determine the versionAffected if Version is before 5.8 (e.g., 5.7.1, 5.7, etc.)
-
Verify --no-PRIVILEGED mode is in useInspect how Zsh is invoked: check shell scripts, cron jobs, systemd units, or command lines for the '--no-PRIVILEGED' or '-u' flagAffected if Zsh is invoked with --no-PRIVILEGED or -u flag to drop privileges
-
Inspect MODULE_PATH for untrusted directoriesRun 'echo $MODULE_PATH' in the affected Zsh environment to list module search pathsAffected if MODULE_PATH includes world-writable or untrusted directories (e.g., /tmp, shared network paths)
-
Audit loaded modules for setuid capabilityRun 'zmodload' to list loaded modules, then inspect any custom/third-party modules in MODULE_PATH for calls to the setuid() C functionAffected if A custom module containing setuid() calls is loadable from the configured MODULE_PATH
You are affected if running Zsh version below 5.8 with the --no-PRIVILEGED option enabled and a malicious or compromised module with setuid() capability is loadable from the configured MODULE_PATH.
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 data5.86.2.510.13.6
Upgrade to Zsh 5.8 or later. Avoid setting MODULE_PATH to untrusted directories when using --no-PRIVILEGED mode, and audit any custom modules for setuid() calls.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-20044 — 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 sources- www.zsh.org
- seclists.org
- seclists.org
- seclists.org
- seclists.org
- zsh.sourceforge.net
- lists.debian.org
- lists.debian.org
- security.gentoo.org
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- support.apple.com
- github.com
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-20044 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