CVE-2005-4895
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 integer overflows in TCMalloc (tcmalloc.cc) in gperftools before 0.4 make it easier for context-dependent attackers to perform memory-related attacks such as buffer overflows via a large size value, which causes less memory to be allocated than expected.
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 confidenceMultiple integer overflows exist in TCMalloc (tcmalloc.cc) in gperftools before version 0.4. When a large size value is provided to memory allocation functions, the integer overflow causes less memory to be allocated than expected, leading to buffer overflows when programs write beyond the actual allocated region.
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<= 0.3= 0.1= 0.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Detect if gperftools is installedSearch for tcmalloc library files on the system: find /usr -name '*tcmalloc*' 2>/dev/null or check package manager: dpkg -l | grep gperftools (Debian) or rpm -qa | grep gperftools (RHEL)Affected if gperftools package or tcmalloc library files are found on the system
-
Identify the installed gperftools versionRun: dpkg -l | grep gperftools or rpm -qi gperftools or check the library version directly: strings /usr/lib/libtcmalloc.so.4 2>/dev/null | grep -i versionAffected if Version is 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, or any version lower than 0.4
-
Determine if applications link against tcmallocCheck running processes for tcmalloc linkage: ldd <executable> | grep tcmalloc or examine /etc/ld.so.preload if system-wide injection is configuredAffected if Applications or shared libraries are linked to libtcmalloc and the gperftools version is below 0.4
-
Check for tcmalloc usage in application configurationReview application startup scripts, environment variables (LD_PRELOAD), or build configurations for references to tcmalloc: grep -r 'tcmalloc' /etc/ or env | grep -i perfAffected if Applications are configured to use tcmalloc via LD_PRELOAD or build linking, with vulnerable gperftools version
The environment is affected if gperftools version 0.3 or earlier is installed AND any application is using tcmalloc for memory allocation, allowing integer overflow during large size allocations.
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 gperftools to version 0.4 or later to obtain the patched TCMalloc. If upgrading is not feasible, implement strict input validation on size parameters passed to memory allocation functions to prevent large values that could trigger the overflow.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-4895 — 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-2005-4895 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