Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 12.94% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
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 | samba | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2:4.3.6+dfsg-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | samba | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2:4.3.6+dfsg-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | samba | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2:4.3.6+dfsg-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | samba | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2:4.3.6+dfsg-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedThe SMB1 implementation in smbd in Samba 3.x and 4.x before 4.1.23, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, 4.3.x before 4.3.6, and 4.4.x before 4.4.0rc4 allows remote authenticated users to modify arbitrary ACLs by using a UNIX SMB1 call to create a symlink, and then using a non-UNIX SMB1 call to write to the ACL content.
The SMB1 implementation in smbd in Samba 3.x and 4.x before 4.1.23, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, 4.3.x before 4.3.6, and 4.4.x before 4.4.0rc4 allows remote authenticated users to modify arbitrary ACLs by using a UNIX SMB1 call to create a symlink, and then using a non-UNIX SMB1 call to write to the ACL content.
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
The SMB1 implementation in smbd in Samba 3.x and 4.x before 4.1.23, 4.2.x before 4.2.9, 4.3.x before 4.3.6, and 4.4.x before 4.4.0rc4 allows remote authenticated users to modify arbitrary ACLs by using a UNIX SMB1 call to create a symlink, and then using a non-UNIX SMB1 call to write to the ACL content.
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
An attacker operating through a network path 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-284: Improper Access Control. The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 13 Mar 2016 · Last source change 6 Aug 2024, 07:51 UTC · CWE-284 · Improper Access Control
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.