Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.41% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | sudo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.6.9p17-2 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | sudo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.6.9p17-2 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | sudo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.6.9p17-2 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | sudo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.6.9p17-2 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 22 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedparse.c in sudo 1.6.9p17 through 1.6.9p19 does not properly interpret a system group (aka %group) in the sudoers file during authorization decisions for a user who belongs to that group, which allows local users to leverage an applicable sudoers file and gain root privileges via a sudo command.
parse.c in sudo 1.6.9p17 through 1.6.9p19 does not properly interpret a system group (aka %group) in the sudoers file during authorization decisions for a user who belongs to that group, which allows local users to leverage an applicable sudoers file and gain root privileges via a sudo command.
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
parse.c in sudo 1.6.9p17 through 1.6.9p19 does not properly interpret a system group (aka %group) in the sudoers file during authorization decisions for a user who belongs to that group, which allows local users to leverage an applicable sudoers file and gain root privileges via a sudo command.
The application performs an authorisation check, but it does not correctly enforce the required permission boundary.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization. The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 30 Jan 2009 · Last source change 7 Aug 2024, 04:17 UTC · CWE-863 · Incorrect Authorization
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.