The getenv and filenameforall functions in Ghostscript 9.10 ignore the "-dSAFER" argument, which allows remote attackers to read data via a
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 23/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1.9% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 79.7% of all records.
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. No account or password is required. A user must open a link or visit a page. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: ghostscript (Debian:12) 9.19~dfsg-3.1; ghostscript (Debian:7) 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u3; ghostscript (Debian:8) 9.06~dfsg-2+deb8u3.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to ghostscript (Debian:12) 9.19~dfsg-3.1; ghostscript (Debian:7) 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u3; ghostscript (Debian:8) 9.06~dfsg-2+deb8u3 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
The getenv and filenameforall functions in Ghostscript 9.10 ignore the "-dSAFER" argument, which allows remote attackers to read data via a crafted postscript file.
- Published
- Mar 7, 2017
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 2.0% · 80th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-200
Report tools
Action score
23
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 22 / 40 · 5.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 2.0%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| artifex | afpl ghostscript | cpe:2.3:a:artifex:afpl_ghostscript |
| debian | debian linux | cpe:2.3:o:debian:debian_linux |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- artifex afpl ghostscript9.10
- debian debian linux8.0
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | ghostscript | before 9.19~dfsg-3.1 | 9.19~dfsg-3.1 |
| Debian:7 | ghostscript | before 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u3 | 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u3 |
| Debian:8 | ghostscript | before 9.06~dfsg-2+deb8u3 | 9.06~dfsg-2+deb8u3 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | ghostscript | before 9.20-2.1 | 9.20-2.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::client | ghostscript | before 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 | 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::client | ghostscript-debuginfo | before 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 | 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::client | ghostscript-devel | before 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 | 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::client | ghostscript-doc | before 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 | 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:6::client | ghostscript-gtk | before 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 | 0:8.70-21.el6_8.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript-cups | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript-debuginfo | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript-devel | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript-doc | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | ghostscript-gtk | before 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Desktop 12 SP1 | ghostscript | before 9.15-17.2 | 9.15-17.2 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Desktop 12 SP1 | ghostscript | before 9.15-11.1 | 9.15-11.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Software Development Kit 11 SP4 | ghostscript-library | before 8.62-32.38.1 | 8.62-32.38.1 |
Same product
artifex: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2009-3743Off-by-one error in the Ins_MINDEX function in the TrueType bytecode interpreter in Ghostscript before 8.71 allows remote attackers to execu39Monitor
- CVE-2009-4897Buffer overflow in gs/psi/iscan.c in Ghostscript 8.64 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of ser39Monitor
- CVE-2017-6196Multiple use-after-free vulnerabilities in the gx_image_enum_begin function in base/gxipixel.c in Ghostscript before ecceafe3abba2714ef9b43232Monitor
- CVE-2015-3228Integer overflow in the gs_heap_alloc_bytes function in base/gsmalloc.c in Ghostscript 9.15 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a d28Monitor
- CVE-2010-2055Ghostscript 8.71 and earlier reads initialization files from the current working directory, which allows local users to execute arbitrary Po28Monitor
- CVE-2010-4054The gs_type2_interpret function in Ghostscript allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (incorrect pointer dereference and appli18Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| debian:ghostscript | 9.19~dfsg-3.1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:ghostscript | 9.20-2.1 · openSUSE:Tumbleweed | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript-cups | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript-debuginfo | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript-devel | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript-doc | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:ghostscript-gtk | 0:9.07-20.el7_3.1 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:7::client | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:ghostscript | 9.15-11.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Desktop 12 SP1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:ghostscript-library | 8.62-32.38.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Software Development Kit 11 SP4 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized ActorCVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Root cause
The extension requests broader permissions than its function needs and sends the data it collects out for purposes beyond its stated function.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-200 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
{ "permissions": ["tabs", "<all_urls>"], "background": { "service_worker": "analytics.js" }}Fixed
{ "permissions": ["activeTab"], "host_permissions": ["https://yildiz.example/*"]}Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- ExcavationCAPEC-116likelihood: High · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
- FootprintingCAPEC-169likelihood: High · Very Low
- Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-22likelihood: High · High
- FingerprintingCAPEC-224likelihood: High · Very Low
- ICMP Echo Request PingCAPEC-285likelihood: Medium · Low
- TCP SYN ScanCAPEC-287Low
- Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) RecordsCAPEC-290Low
ATT&CK techniques
- System Service DiscoveryT1007
- System Network Configuration DiscoveryT1016
- Remote System DiscoveryT1018
- System Owner/User DiscoveryT1033
- Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or LocationT1036.005
- Network Service ScanningT1046
- System Network Connections DiscoveryT1049
- Process DiscoveryT1057
- Permission Groups DiscoveryT1069
- System Information DiscoveryT1082
- File and Directory DiscoveryT1083
- Account DiscoveryT1087
- Multi-Factor Authentication InterceptionT1111
- Peripheral Device DiscoveryT1120
- System Time DiscoveryT1124
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (8 more)Show less
- rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0014.html
- www.debian.org/security/2016/dsa-3691
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/28
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/5
- www.securityfocus.com/bid/96497
- bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694724
- bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697169
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380327
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.