CVE-2023-4091
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was discovered in Samba, where the flaw allows SMB clients to truncate files, even with read-only permissions when the Samba VFS module "acl_xattr" is configured with "acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes". The SMB protocol allows opening files when the client requests read-only access but then implicitly truncates the opened file to 0 bytes if the client specifies a separate OVERWRITE create disposition request. The issue arises in configurations that bypass kernel file system permissions checks, relying solely on Samba's permissions.
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 Samba with the acl_xattr VFS module configured with 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes', the SMB protocol allows a client to open a file with read-only access but then implicitly truncate it to zero bytes if the client sends an OVERWRITE create disposition request. This bypasses kernel filesystem permission checks and allows read-only files to be truncated, as Samba relies solely on its own permission model when system ACLs are ignored.
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= 39= 3.0= 8.0= 9.0< 4.17.12>= 4.18.0, < 4.18.8>= 4.19.0, < 4.19.1CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify installed Samba versionRun 'smbd --version' or 'rpm -q samba' to get the installed Samba version numberAffected if The version is < 4.17.12, OR >= 4.18.0 and < 4.18.8, OR >= 4.19.0 and < 4.19.1
-
Locate smb.conf configuration fileFind the Samba configuration file, typically at /etc/samba/smb.confAffected if File exists and is readable
-
Check if acl_xattr VFS module is loadedSearch the smb.conf for lines containing 'vfs objects' or 'vfs module' and verify 'acl_xattr' is listedAffected if acl_xattr VFS module is configured in any share or global section
-
Verify the vulnerable setting is enabledSearch smb.conf for 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes' configuration directiveAffected if This exact setting is present and set to 'yes' in the configuration
-
Confirm share uses the affected configurationReview the specific share sections in smb.conf where acl_xattr is active and verify the ignore system acls setting applies to those sharesAffected if A share has acl_xattr module loaded with 'ignore system acls = yes'
The environment is affected if Samba version is vulnerable AND the acl_xattr VFS module is configured with 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes', allowing read-only files to be truncated via SMB without kernel permission checks.
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.
dbcve · scoped4.17.124.18.84.19.1
Review the necessity of 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes' configuration; if possible, disable this setting or implement additional share-level access controls to prevent write operations on read-only shares.
Samba >= 4.17.12, >= 4.18.8, or >= 4.19.1 (depending on your release branch)
- 1. Identify the current Samba version installed: rpm -qa | grep samba or smbd --version
- 2. For RHEL 8.x systems, update Samba to version 4.17.12 or later using: sudo dnf update samba
- 3. For RHEL 9.x systems, update Samba to version 4.18.8 or later using: sudo dnf update samba
- 4. For Fedora 39 systems, update Samba to version 4.18.8 or later using: sudo dnf update samba
- 5. After updating, restart the Samba services: sudo systemctl restart smb.service nmb.service
- 6. Verify the new Samba version is installed: smbd --version
- 7. If using the acl_xattr module with 'ignore system acls = yes', review the configuration to ensure it is still required, as this setting bypasses filesystem permission checks
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $3,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-4091 — 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-2023-4091 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