CVE-2020-15103: Integer Overflow in FreeRDP
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 14/100)
- 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: 1.4% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 73.7% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. A user must open a link or visit a page. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: FreeRDP FreeRDP 2.2.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to FreeRDP FreeRDP 2.2.0 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
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
In FreeRDP less than or equal to 2.1.2, an integer overflow exists due to missing input sanitation in rdpegfx channel. All FreeRDP clients are affected. The input rectangles from the server are not checked against local surface coordinates and blindly accepted. A malicious server can send data that will crash the client later on (invalid length arguments to a `memcpy`) This has been fixed in 2.2.0. As a workaround, stop using command line arguments /gfx, /gfx-h264 and /network:auto
- Published
- Jul 27, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.4% · 73th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-680
Report tools
Action score
14
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 14 / 40 · 3.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.4%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 3.5
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 3.5
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| freerdp | freerdp | cpe:2.3:a:freerdp:freerdp |
| fedoraproject | fedora | cpe:2.3:o:fedoraproject:fedora |
| opensuse | leap | cpe:2.3:o:opensuse:leap |
| canonical | ubuntu linux | cpe:2.3:o:canonical:ubuntu_linux |
| 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.
- canonical ubuntu linux18.04
- canonical ubuntu linux20.04
- debian debian linux10.0
- fedoraproject fedora31
- fedoraproject fedora32
- freerdp freerdpup to 2.1.2 inclusive
- opensuse leap15.1
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
FreeRDP FreeRDP
- <= 2.1.2affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| AlmaLinux:8 | freerdp-devel | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Alpine:v3.12 | freerdp | before 2.2.0-r0 | 2.2.0-r0 |
| Alpine:v3.22 | freerdp2 | before 2.2.0-r0 | 2.2.0-r0 |
| Debian:12 | freerdp2 | before 2.2.0+dfsg1-1 | 2.2.0+dfsg1-1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.1 | freerdp | before 2.1.2-lp151.5.9.1 | 2.1.2-lp151.5.9.1 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | freerdp | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | freerdp-debuginfo | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | freerdp-debugsource | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | freerdp-libs | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | freerdp-libs-debuginfo | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | libwinpr | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | libwinpr-debuginfo | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | libwinpr-devel | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::crb | freerdp-devel | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Rocky Linux:8 | freerdp | before 2:2.2.0-1.el8 | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 |
| Rocky Linux:8 | freerdp | before 2:2.2.0-10.el8 | 2:2.2.0-10.el8 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP1 | freerdp | before 2.1.2-10.18.1 | 2.1.2-10.18.1 |
| SUSE:Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP2 | freerdp | before 2.1.2-15.10.1 | 2.1.2-15.10.1 |
Same product
freerdp: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2018-8787FreeRDP prior to version 2.0.0-rc4 contains an Integer Overflow that leads to a Heap-Based Buffer Overflow in function gdi_Bitmap_Decompress42Plan
- CVE-2018-8788FreeRDP prior to version 2.0.0-rc4 contains an Out-Of-Bounds Write of up to 4 bytes in function nsc_rle_decode() that results in a memory co41Plan
- CVE-2018-8786FreeRDP prior to version 2.0.0-rc4 contains an Integer Truncation that leads to a Heap-Based Buffer Overflow in function update_read_bitmap_41Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-4032Jun 22, 2020 · Integer casting vulnerability in `update_recv_secondary_order` in FreeRDP18Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-4033Jun 22, 2020 · OOB Read in RLEDECOMPRESS in FreeRDP27Monitor
- Later →CVE-2021-37594Jul 30, 2021 · In FreeRDP before 2.4.0 on Windows, wf_cliprdr_server_file_contents_request in client/Windows/wf_cliprdr.c has missing input checks for a FI39Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| FreeRDP FreeRDP | 2.2.0 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| almalinux:freerdp-devel | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · AlmaLinux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| alpine:freerdp | 2.2.0-r0 · Alpine:v3.12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| alpine:freerdp2 | 2.2.0-r0 · Alpine:v3.22 | Package registry (OSV) |
| debian:freerdp2 | 2.2.0+dfsg1-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:freerdp | 2.1.2-lp151.5.9.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp-debuginfo | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp-debugsource | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp-devel | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::crb | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp-libs | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:freerdp-libs-debuginfo | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:libwinpr | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:libwinpr-debuginfo | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:libwinpr-devel | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Red Hat:enterprise_linux:8::appstream | Package registry (OSV) |
| rocky linux:freerdp | 2:2.2.0-1.el8 · Rocky Linux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| suse:freerdp | 2.1.2-15.10.1 · SUSE:Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP2 | 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.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
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
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- low · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- Low
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-680 · Integer Overflow to Buffer OverflowCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
nvd-primary
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)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Overflow BuffersCAPEC-100likelihood: High · Very High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-46likelihood: High · High
- Buffer Overflow via Parameter ExpansionCAPEC-47likelihood: Medium · High
- String Format Overflow in syslog()CAPEC-67likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (7 more)Show less
- github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/blob/616af2d5b86dc24c7b3e89870dbcffd841d9a535/ChangeLog#L4
- github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/pull/6382
- github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/security/advisories/GHSA-4r38-6hq7-j3j9
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/10/msg00008.html
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6Y35HBHG2INICLSGCIKNAR7GCXEHQACQ/
- lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XOZLH35OJWIQLM7FYDXAP2EAUBDXE76V/
- usn.ubuntu.com/4481-1/
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.