CVE-2018-1053
CVE-2018-1053 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Intelligence
In postgresql 9.3.x before 9.3.21, 9.4.x before 9.4.16, 9.5.x before 9.5.11, 9.6.x before 9.6.7 and 10.x before 10.2, pg_upgrade creates file in current working directory containing the output of `pg_dumpall -g` under umask which was in effect when the user invoked pg_upgrade, and not under 0077 which is normally used for other temporary files. This can allow an authenticated attacker to read or modify the one file, which may contain encrypted or unencrypted database passwords. The attack is infeasible if a directory mode blocks the attacker searching the current working directory or if the prevailing umask blocks the attacker opening the file.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, redhat
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
Unscored
no source published a base score
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-377
References
7 on the record
- www.postgresql.org/about/news/1829/
x_refsource_CONFIRM
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2511
vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/02/msg00006.html
mailing-list, x_refsource_MLIST
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2566
vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3816
vendor-advisory, x_refsource_REDHAT
- www.securityfocus.com/bid/102986
vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
- usn.ubuntu.com/3564-1/
vendor-advisory, x_refsource_UBUNTU
Elsewhere on this site
- the postgresql global development groupevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-377other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.