CVE-2008-0554
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the readImageData function in giftopnm.c in netpbm before 10.27 in netpbm before 10.27 allows remote user-assisted attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted GIF image, a similar issue to CVE-2006-4484.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow in the readImageData function in giftopnm.c in netpbm before version 10.27 allows remote user-assisted attackers to cause denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted GIF image.
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<= 10.26CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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 giftopnm' or 'which netpbm' to locate the executables, or check your package manager (dpkg -l | grep netpbm, rpm -qa | grep netpbm)Affected if netpbm is not found in the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Identify the installed netpbm versionRun 'giftopnm -version' or check via package manager: 'dpkg -l netpbm' or 'rpm -q netpbm'Affected if the version returned is 10.26 or earlier, indicating a vulnerable version
-
Confirm the vulnerable component existsVerify the giftopnm binary exists and is executable (ls -l $(which giftopnm))Affected if giftopnm exists and netpbm version is 10.26 or below, the vulnerable binary is present
-
Verify the affected function is in the code baseIf netpbm is built from source, check for giftopnm.c and its readImageData function by examining the source file if availableAffected if the source code contains the vulnerable readImageData function in giftopnm.c from versions before 10.27
If netpbm version 10.26 or earlier is installed and the giftopnm tool is present, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 version 10.27 or later to patch the vulnerability. Avoid processing untrusted GIF images with vulnerable netpbm versions until patched.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-0554 — 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-2008-0554 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