CVE-2005-2471
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 · uneditedpstopnm in netpbm does not properly use the "-dSAFER" option when calling Ghostscript to convert a PostScript file into a (1) PBM, (2) PGM, or (3) PNM file, which allows external user-assisted attackers to execute arbitrary commands.
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 confidenceThe pstopnm utility in netpbm fails to properly use the Ghostscript '-dSAFER' option when converting PostScript files to PBM, PGM, or PNM image formats. This security option is designed to restrict Ghostscript to safe operations and prevent execution of arbitrary commands embedded in malicious PostScript files. The improper implementation allows user-assisted attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the system.
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= 2.10.0.8CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Check if netpbm is installedRun 'which pstopnm' or 'dpkg -l | grep netpbm' or 'rpm -qa | grep -i netpbm' to see if the netpbm package or pstopnm utility exists on the systemAffected if pstopnm or netpbm is not found on the system - the vulnerability does not apply
-
Determine the installed netpbm versionRun 'pstopnm --version' or check the package manager output (dpkg -l netpbm, rpm -qi netpbm) to get the exact version numberAffected if The version is 2.10.0.8 - this is the affected version
-
Inspect how pstopnm invokes GhostscriptExamine the pstopnm script or binary: use 'which pstopnm' to find its location, then 'cat' the script or use 'strings' on the binary to search for Ghostscript invocations; look for the presence or absence of the '-dSAFER' flagAffected if Ghostscript is invoked without the '-dSAFER' flag in the command line, indicating the vulnerability is present
-
Verify Ghostscript is availableRun 'which gs' or 'gs --version' to confirm Ghostscript is installed, since pstopnm depends on it for PostScript conversionAffected if Ghostscript is installed and pstopnm exists - the conversion pipeline that could be exploited is present
A user is affected if they have netpbm version 2.10.0.8 installed AND the pstopnm utility is present and invokes Ghostscript without the -dSAFER option, allowing malicious PostScript files to execute arbitrary commands during conversion.
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 dataUpgrade netpbm to a version where pstopnm correctly invokes Ghostscript with the -dSAFER flag, or implement input validation to reject PostScript files containing potentially malicious command constructs before conversion.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-2471 — 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-2005-2471 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