CVE-2010-3192
published 2010-10-14CVE-2010-3192: Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow…
PriorityP423medium5CVSS 2.0
AVNACLAuNCPINAN
EPSS
1.61%
73.0th percentile
Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
Affected
1 ranges
| Vendor | Product | Version range | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| gnu | glibc | < 2.26 | 2.26 |
CVSS provenance
nvdv2.05.0MEDIUMAV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
osv5.0MEDIUM
vendor_redhat5.0MEDIUM
Stop checking back — get the weekly exploitation signal.
Every Monday: what got weaponized or added to CISA KEV in the last seven days — each CVE cross-linked to its PoC, Nuclei template, and detection rule. Free, one email a week, unsubscribe in one click.
GHSA
GHSA-388x-h72v-g58j: Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow con
ghsa_unreviewed·2022-05-13
CVE-2010-3192 [MEDIUM] CWE-200 GHSA-388x-h72v-g58j: Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow con
Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
OSV
CVE-2010-3192: Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow con
osv·2010-10-14·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2010-3192 [MEDIUM] CVE-2010-3192: Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow con
Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
Red Hat
glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
vendor_redhat·2010-04-27·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2010-3192 [MEDIUM] glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
glibc: __fortify_fail may use corrupted memory when called from SSP callback
Certain run-time memory protection mechanisms in the GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) print argv[0] and backtrace information, which might allow context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory by executing an incorrect program, as demonstrated by a setuid program that contains a stack-based buffer overflow error, related to the __fortify_fail function in debug/fortify_fail.c, and the __stack_chk_fail (aka stack protection) and __chk_fail (aka FORTIFY_SOURCE) implementations.
Statement: The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security
impact. We do not currently plan to fix this flaw. If more information becomes available at a future date, we may rev
No detection rules found.
No public exploits indexed.
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Apr/399http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/25/8http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/6http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/08/31/7http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/2http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/3http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/4http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2010/09/02/5
2010-10-14
Published