CVE-2009-0195
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 · uneditedHeap-based buffer overflow in Xpdf 3.02pl2 and earlier, CUPS 1.3.9, and probably other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a PDF file with crafted JBIG2 symbol dictionary segments.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Xpdf 3.02pl2 and earlier and CUPS 1.3.9 PDF parsing libraries, specifically in the JBIG2 symbol dictionary segment handler. Malicious PDF files with specially crafted JBIG2 symbol dictionaries can trigger the overflow, potentially allowing remote code execution.
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= 1.3.9= 0.5a= 0.7a= 0.91a= 0.91b= 0.91c= 0.92a= 0.92b= 0.92c= 0.92d= 0.92e= 0.93a= 0.93b<= 3.02= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.6= 0.7= 0.80= 0.90= 0.91= 0.92= 0.93CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed CUPS versionRun 'cups-config --version' or check '/usr/share/cups/cups.h' for version, or use package manager: 'dpkg -l libcups2' (Debian) or 'rpm -qi cups' (RHEL)Affected if Version equals 1.3.9
-
Identify installed Xpdf versionRun 'pdfinfo -v' or 'xpdf -v' or check package manager: 'dpkg -l xpdf' (Debian) or 'rpm -qi xpdf' (RHEL)Affected if Version is any of: 0.5a, 0.7a, 0.91a, 0.91b, 0.91c, 0.92a, 0.92b, 0.92c, 0.92d, 0.92e, 0.93a, 0.93b, or any version 3.02 or earlier from Glyphandcog (0.2 through 0.93)
-
Check if PDF processing handles JBIG2This vulnerability triggers when parsing a PDF containing JBIG2 symbol dictionaries. JBIG2 support is built into the affected library versions. There is no config flag to disable; verify only the version.Affected if The affected version processes PDF files containing JBIG2-encoded content, which is common in scanned document PDFs
You are affected if CUPS version 1.3.9 or any Xpdf/Foolabs version from 0.5a through 0.93b (or Glyphandcog Xpdfreader <= 3.02) is installed and used to process untrusted PDF files.
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 Xpdf to version 3.02pl3 or later and CUPS to version 1.3.10 or later. Implement input validation for PDF files and exercise caution with untrusted PDF documents.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0195 — 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-2009-0195 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