ghsa-m37c-h529-2gqw
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-17 02:39
Modified
2022-05-17 02:39
Details
Heap-based buffer overflow in the linetoken function in afmparse.c in t1lib, as used in teTeX 3.0.x, GNOME evince, and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a DVI file containing a crafted Adobe Font Metrics (AFM) file, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-2642.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2011-0433" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-119" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2012-11-19T12:10:00Z", "severity": "MODERATE" }, "details": "Heap-based buffer overflow in the linetoken function in afmparse.c in t1lib, as used in teTeX 3.0.x, GNOME evince, and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a DVI file containing a crafted Adobe Font Metrics (AFM) file, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-2642.", "id": "GHSA-m37c-h529-2gqw", "modified": "2022-05-17T02:39:20Z", "published": "2022-05-17T02:39:20Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-0433" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=640923" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679732" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201701-57" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-1201.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/48985" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?name=MDVSA-2012:144" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "http://xorl.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/cve-2011-0433-evince-linetoken-buffer-overflow" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [] }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.