CVE-2004-0914
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 vulnerabilities in libXpm for 6.8.1 and earlier, as used in XFree86 and other packages, include (1) multiple integer overflows, (2) out-of-bounds memory accesses, (3) directory traversal, (4) shell metacharacter, (5) endless loops, and (6) memory leaks, which could allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information, cause a denial of service (application crash), or execute arbitrary code via a certain XPM image file. NOTE: it is highly likely that this candidate will be SPLIT into other candidates in the future, per CVE's content decisions.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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 dataall versions= core_2.0= core_3.0= 0.93= 0.93.12= 0.93.18= 0.93.34= 0.93.36= 0.93.40= 0.93.91= 0.93.94= 0.93.96= 6.7.0= 6.8= 6.8.1= 3.3= 3.3.2= 3.3.3= 3.3.4= 3.3.5= 3.3.6= 4.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2.11= 4.0.3= 4.1.0= 4.1.11= 1.0= 8= 8.1= 8.2= 9.0= 9.1= 9.2CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
dbcve · scopedX11R6.8.2 or later (libXpm 6.8.2 or later); or distribution-specific patched packages (e.g., Fedora Core 2/3 updates, Debian packages from DSA-607)
- 1. Identify the libXpm library version currently installed (e.g., rpm -q libXpm or dpkg -l libxpm)
- 2. For Fedora Core systems, run 'yum update' or 'up2date' to obtain patched packages from Fedora updates
- 3. For Debian/Ubuntu systems, run 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade' to apply Debian DSA-607 patches
- 4. For Suse Linux, apply patches via YaST or download from Suse security updates
- 5. For X11R6 standalone, upgrade to X11R6.8.2 or later which contains the fixed libXpm
- 6. Restart any X11-dependent applications or services after updating the library
- 7. Verify the fix by checking the new libXpm version and testing XPM image parsing
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-0914 — 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 sources- www.debian.org
- secunia.com
- www.debian.org
- www.gentoo.org
- www.securityfocus.com
- rhn.redhat.com
- www.gentoo.org
- www.gentoo.org
- www.linuxsecurity.com
- www.mandriva.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.redhat.com
- www.ubuntu.com
- www.ubuntu.com
- www.x.org
- www1.itrc.hp.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com
- oval.cisecurity.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2004-0914 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