CVE-2024-36053
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 the mintupload package through 4.2.0 for Linux Mint, service-name mishandling leads to command injection via shell metacharacters in check_connection, drop_data_received_cb, and Service.remove. A user can modify a service name in a ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/service file.
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 mintupload package through version 4.2.0 fails to sanitize shell metacharacters in service name configuration files located in ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/. This allows authenticated local users to inject arbitrary shell commands via specially crafted service names that get executed when the vulnerable functions (check_connection, drop_data_received_cb, and Service.remove) process the unsanitized input.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/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 if mintupload package is installedRun `dpkg -l mintupload` on Debian/Ubuntu-based systems, or check via your package managerAffected if The package is not installed means not affected; if installed, proceed to version check
-
Determine installed mintupload versionRun `mintupload --version` or `dpkg -s mintupload | grep Version`Affected if Version 4.2.0 or lower is installed, indicating potential vulnerability
-
Locate service configuration directoryCheck if directory ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/ exists using `ls -la ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/`Affected if Directory does not exist means not affected; if exists, it contains potential attack vectors
-
Inspect service configuration filesList files in the services directory and examine their contents using `cat ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/*`Affected if Service files contain shell metacharacters (such as ;, |, &, $, `, or $(...)) in service names, indicating potential exploitation
-
Check file ownership and permissions on service filesRun `ls -la ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/` to see which users own or can modify these filesAffected if Files are writable by untrusted users, increasing risk of malicious service name injection
System is affected if mintupload version 4.2.0 or lower is installed AND the ~/.linuxmint/mintUpload/services/ directory contains service configuration files, particularly if those files are writable by untrusted users.
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 dataAvoid using untrusted or modified service name files; wait for the official patch from Linux Mint maintainers that properly escapes or validates service names before passing them to shell execution functions.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-36053 — 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-2024-36053 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