CVE-2009-1144
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 · uneditedUntrusted search path vulnerability in the Gentoo package of Xpdf before 3.02-r2 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse xpdfrc file in the current working directory, related to an unset SYSTEM_XPDFRC macro in a Gentoo build process that uses the poppler library.
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 confidenceUntrusted search path vulnerability in Gentoo's Xpdf package allows local privilege escalation. The build process fails to set the SYSTEM_XPDFRC macro, causing Xpdf to search for and execute configuration commands from an xpdfrc file in the current working directory before checking system locations. An attacker with local access can place a malicious xpdfrc file in a directory where a privileged user runs Xpdf to execute arbitrary commands.
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= 0.5a= 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= 0.93= 1.00CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 Xpdf versionRun 'xpdf -version' or check package manager (dpkg -l xpdf, rpm -qa | grep xpdf)Affected if The version matches 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 (Foolabs) OR version <= 3.02, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.80, 0.90, 0.91, 0.93, 1.00 (Glyphandcog) OR the package is from Gentoo and built without SYSTEM_XPDFRC defined
-
Check if SYSTEM_XPDFRC was set during buildInspect the binary for the SYSTEM_XPDFRC string using 'strings /path/to/xpdf | grep -i xpdf' or check build configuration files in /var/db/pkg if on GentooAffected if The binary does not contain SYSTEM_XPDFRC path references, indicating it was built without the macro defined
-
Test xpdfrc search path behaviorCreate a test directory, place a benign xpdfrc file with a custom config option, run 'xpdf' from that directory, and observe if the local file is read before system locationsAffected if Xpdf reads and executes commands from an xpdfrc file in the current working directory rather than ignoring it or only reading from system paths
You are affected if you run any of the listed vulnerable Xpdf versions AND the application loads configuration from the current working directory before system locations, allowing a local attacker to place a malicious xpdfrc file.
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 to Xpdf 3.02-r2 or later on Gentoo systems. Alternatively, rebuild Xpdf with SYSTEM_XPDFRC set to a safe system path and ensure users never run Xpdf from untrusted directories.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-1144 — 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-2009-1144 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