CVE-2024-29509
Public on
Last Modified:
Description
A flaw was found in Ghostscript. The runpdf command allowed the new C-based PDF interpreter to be invoked from within PS. With this, it can pass various flags and arguments (for example, see pdf_impl_set_param) normally passed via the command line when the PDF interpreter is invoked directly. Because PS-strings are not null-terminated, this issue will result in a heap buffer overflow when a value of PDFPassword is supplied with a NULL byte in the middle.
Statement
This vulnerability in Ghostscript, while serious, is considered moderate rather than important due to several mitigating factors. First, exploitation requires specific conditions, including the ability to supply a crafted PS file with a malicious PDFPassword containing a NULL byte. This restricts the attack surface primarily to scenarios where untrusted PS files are processed. Additionally, the issue does not directly lead to remote code execution or privilege escalation without further exploitation techniques. Instead, it results in a heap buffer overflow, which can be challenging to exploit reliably due to modern memory protection mechanisms.
Mitigation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.
Additional information
- Bugzilla 2295628: ghostscript: heap buffer overflow via the PDFPassword parameter
- CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2024-29509
External references
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
| Red Hat | NVD | |
|---|---|---|
CVSS v3 Base Score | 5.4 | 8.8 |
Attack Vector | Network | Network |
Attack Complexity | Low | Low |
Privileges Required | None | None |
User Interaction | Required | Required |
Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged |
Confidentiality Impact | None | High |
Integrity Impact | Low | High |
Availability Impact | Low | High |
CVSS v3 Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Modify Memory
Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. Besides important user data, heap-based overflows can be used to overwrite function pointers that may be living in memory, pointing it to the attacker's code. Even in applications that do not explicitly use function pointers, the run-time will usually leave many in memory. For example, object methods in C++ are generally implemented using function pointers. Even in C programs, there is often a global offset table used by the underlying runtime.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control,Other
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Other
When the consequence is arbitrary code execution, this can often be used to subvert any other security service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
