LinuxOperating system · Gentoo
CVE-2004-0548
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple stack-based buffer overflows in the word-list-compress functionality in compress.c for Aspell allow local users to execute arbitrary code via a long entry in the wordlist that is not properly handled when using the (1) "c" compress option or (2) "d" decompress option.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceAspell's word-list-compress functionality in compress.c contains multiple stack-based buffer overflows. When processing wordlist entries using the 'c' (compress) or 'd' (decompress) options, long entries are not properly bounds-checked before being copied to fixed-size stack buffers, allowing local attackers to overwrite return addresses and execute arbitrary code.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
LinuxOperating system
= 1.4= 0.50.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify Aspell is installedRun 'aspell --version' or check package manager (e.g., 'dpkg -l aspell', 'rpm -q aspell', 'emerge -s aspell')Affected if Aspell version is 0.50.5 or Gentoo Linux Aspell 1.4 (exact versions match the affected ranges)
-
Locate word-list-compress utilityRun 'which word-list-compress' or check for the utility in Aspell's bin directory (typically /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin/)Affected if The word-list-compress binary exists on the system and is executable
-
Identify active wordlist processing workflowsReview cron jobs, scripts, or applications that invoke word-list-compress with 'c' (compress) or 'd' (decompress) options; check configuration files for wordlist processing tasksAffected if Any automated or manual process uses word-list-compress with the 'c' or 'd' options on wordlist files
-
Assess access to wordlist filesInspect file permissions on wordlist directories (typically /usr/share/aspell/ or custom wordlist paths) and determine if untrusted users can provide or modify wordlist contentAffected if Wordlist files are writable by untrusted users or are sourced from untrusted/network locations
A system is affected if it runs Gnu Aspell 0.50.5 or Gentoo Linux Aspell 1.4 and uses the word-list-compress utility with 'c' or 'd' options on wordlists that could be controlled by an attacker.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate to a patched version of Aspell. If patching is not feasible, restrict access to the wordlist compression/decompression functionality and avoid processing untrusted wordlists.
Fix this in Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-0548 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2004-0548 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data