CVE-2019-3688
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 · uneditedThe /usr/sbin/pinger binary packaged with squid in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 before and including version 4.8-5.8.1 and in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 before and including 3.5.21-26.17.1 had squid:root, 0750 permissions. This allowed an attacker that compromissed the squid user to gain persistence by changing the binary
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 confidenceThe /usr/sbin/pinger binary in Squid had squid:root ownership with 0750 permissions, allowing the squid user write access to a binary that executes with elevated privileges. This enabled an attacker who compromised the squid user to replace the binary and gain persistent root-level access.
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= 12= 15CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Verify Squid installationRun `rpm -qa | grep squid` to check if the squid package is installedAffected if Squid is not installed on the system
-
Confirm pinger binary existsRun `ls -la /usr/sbin/pinger` to verify the binary is presentAffected if The file /usr/sbin/pinger exists on the system
-
Check ownership of the pinger binaryRun `stat -c '%U:%G' /usr/sbin/pinger` to inspect the file owner and groupAffected if Ownership is squid:root (squid user owns the file)
-
Check permissions on the pinger binaryRun `stat -c '%a' /usr/sbin/pinger` to inspect the octal permissionsAffected if Permissions are 0750 or any mode allowing write access for the owner (squid)
-
Verify squid user can modify the binaryRun `su - squid -c 'test -w /usr/sbin/pinger && echo Vulnerable'` as root to test write accessAffected if The squid user has write access to the binary
The system is affected if Squid is installed and the /usr/sbin/pinger binary is owned by squid:root with permissions allowing the squid user write access (such as 0750).
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 dataChange ownership to root:root and permissions to 0755 (or remove the binary if unnecessary), and apply vendor patches for affected SUSE versions.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-3688 — 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-2019-3688 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