CVE-2024-36586
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 · uneditedAn issue in AdGuardHome v0.93 to latest allows unprivileged attackers to escalate privileges via overwriting the AdGuardHome 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 · moderate confidenceAdGuardHome versions v0.93 through latest contain a privilege escalation vulnerability where unprivileged attackers can overwrite the AdGuardHome binary file on the filesystem. Since the service typically runs with elevated privileges, an attacker with write access to the binary can replace it with a malicious version that executes with elevated privileges upon next service restart or execution.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify AdGuardHome installation and versionLocate the AdGuardHome binary (common paths: /usr/bin/adguardhome, /usr/local/bin/adguardhome, /opt/adguardhome/adguardhome) and run 'adguardhome --version' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version is v0.93 or any later version (including latest)
-
Check AdGuardHome binary ownershipRun 'ls -la <path_to_adguardhome_binary>' to see the owner and group. The owner should typically be rootAffected if Owner is not root or is an unprivileged user/service account
-
Check AdGuardHome binary permissionsRun 'ls -la <path_to_adguardhome_binary>' and examine the permission bits (e.g., -rwxr-xr-x). The binary should not be writable by group or othersAffected if Permissions include write bit for group (g+w) or others (o+w); ideally should be 755 or more restrictive
-
Check parent directory permissionsRun 'ls -la' on the directory containing the AdGuardHome binary (e.g., /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/adguardhome) to check if unprivileged users have write accessAffected if Parent directory is writable by non-root users (permissions include w for group or others)
-
Verify service account privilegesCheck which user account runs the AdGuardHome service (e.g., 'systemctl status adguardhome' or 'ps aux | grep adguardhome') and determine if that user has write access to the binary fileAffected if The service runs with elevated privileges AND an unprivileged user or process has write access to the binary
A user is affected if AdGuardHome v0.93 or later is installed AND the binary or its parent directory is writable by unprivileged users, allowing potential replacement with malicious code that would execute with elevated privileges.
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 dataRestrict file permissions on the AdGuardHome binary to prevent write access by unprivileged users; ensure the binary is owned by root with appropriate restrictive permissions (e.g., 755 or 700) and verify no unprivileged users have write access to the parent directory.
- 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-2024-36586 — 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-2024-36586 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