dbcve.org
Incorrect Permission AssignmentWeakness · CWE-732

CVE-2024-2905

MEDIUM · 6.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
67/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
A security vulnerability has been discovered within rpm-ostree, pertaining to the /etc/shadow file in default builds having the world-readable bit enabled. This issue arises from the default permissions being set at a higher level than recommended, potentially exposing sensitive authentication data to unauthorized access.

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 · moderate confidence

rpm-ostree, a hybrid image/package system used in Fedora CoreOS and related distributions, sets /etc/shadow with world-readable permissions (likely 0644) in default builds. The /etc/shadow file contains password hashes and should only be accessible by root (typically 0400 or 0600). This exposes sensitive authentication data to all users on the system.

MitigationEnsure /etc/shadow has restrictive permissions (0400 or 0600, owned by root) in rpm-ostree images by correcting the default umask or explicit permission settings in the build process, and rebuild/rebase affected systems to apply corrected images.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine if system uses rpm-ostree
    Run 'rpm-ostree status' or check for /sysroot on hybrid image systems
    Affected if System is a Fedora CoreOS, Fedora Silverblue, or related rpm-ostree-based distribution
  2. Check /etc/shadow file permissions
    Run 'ls -la /etc/shadow' to view permission bits
    Affected if Permissions are world-readable (such as -rw-r--r-- or numeric 0644)
  3. Verify /etc/shadow ownership and mode
    Run 'stat -c "%a %U:%G" /etc/shadow' for precise numeric mode and owner
    Affected if Mode is 644 or higher (allowing group or other read), or owned by a non-root user

A system is affected if it is an rpm-ostree image with /etc/shadow readable by non-root users (mode 0644 or more permissive, or group/other have any read access).

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Ensure /etc/shadow has restrictive permissions (0400 or 0600, owned by root) in rpm-ostree images by correcting the default umask or explicit permission settings in the build process, and rebuild/rebase affected systems to apply corrected images.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,330
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2905 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-2905 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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