| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability identified as critical has been detected in RaidenFTPD 2.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. Performing a manipulation results in memory corruption. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2008-6186. Furthermore, there is an exploit available.
Details
A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in RaidenFTPD 2.4 (File Transfer Software). This affects some unknown functionality. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a memory corruption vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-119. The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it can read from or write to a memory location that is outside of the intended boundary of the buffer. This is going to have an impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
Stack-based buffer overflow in RaidenFTPD 2.4 build 3620 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) or execute arbitrary code via long (1) CWD and (2) MLST commands.
The weakness was shared 02/19/2009 (Website). The advisory is shared at vupen.com. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2008-6186 since 02/19/2009. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. A authentication is required for exploitation. Technical details are unknown but a public exploit is available.
A public exploit has been developed in Python. The exploit is shared for download at securityfocus.com. It is declared as proof-of-concept.
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
The vulnerability is also documented in the databases at Exploit-DB (6742), SecurityFocus (BID 31741†) and Secunia (SA32216†). If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Type
Name
Version
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔍VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 9.9VulDB Meta Temp Score: 9.0
VulDB Base Score: 9.9
VulDB Temp Score: 9.0
VulDB Vector: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔍
VulDB Temp Score: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
NVD Base Score: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Memory corruptionCWE: CWE-119
CAPEC: 🔍
ATT&CK: 🔍
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔍
Access: Public
Status: Proof-of-Concept
Programming Language: 🔍
Download: 🔍
EPSS Score: 🔍
EPSS Percentile: 🔍
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔍
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
OpenVAS ID: 900511
OpenVAS Name: RaidenFTPD Server CWD and MLST Command Denial of Service Vulnerability
OpenVAS File: 🔍
OpenVAS Family: 🔍
Exploit-DB: 🔍
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔍
Timeline
10/13/2008 🔍10/14/2008 🔍
02/19/2009 🔍
02/19/2009 🔍
02/19/2009 🔍
03/17/2015 🔍
11/08/2024 🔍
Sources
Advisory: vupen.com⛔Status: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2008-6186 (🔍)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2008-6186
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-46629
SecurityFocus: 31741 - RaidenFTPD 'MLST' Command Remote Stack Based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
Secunia: 32216 - RaidenFTPD Directory Name Buffer Overflow Vulnerability, Moderately Critical
Vupen: ADV-2008-2804
scip Labs: https://www.scip.ch/en/?labs.20161013
Entry
Created: 03/17/2015 16:11Updated: 11/08/2024 00:29
Changes: 03/17/2015 16:11 (54), 10/29/2018 06:16 (9), 11/08/2024 00:29 (21)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.