CVE-2009-3930
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 Christos Zoulas file before 5.02 allow user-assisted remote attackers to have an unspecified impact via a malformed compound document (aka cdf) file that triggers a buffer overflow.
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 file command utility before version 5.02 contains multiple integer overflow vulnerabilities in its compound document (CDF) parser. When processing a malformed CDF file, these integer overflows lead to buffer overflows that could allow 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<= 5.01= 3.30= 3.31= 3.32= 3.33= 3.34= 3.36= 3.37= 3.38= 3.39= 3.40= 3.41CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/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.
-
Verify the file command is installedRun `which file` or `file --version` to locate the utilityAffected if The file command is not found on the system, then this CVE does not apply
-
Determine the installed version of the file utilityRun `file --version` or `file -v` and note the version number displayedAffected if The reported version is 5.01 or lower, or falls within 3.30 through 3.41, or 3.36, 3.37, 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, indicating a vulnerable release
-
Confirm the compound document (CDF) parser is in useInspect system logs or scripts that invoke the file command, or test by running `file <any>.doc` where the file is a Microsoft Office compound documentAffected if The file command is used to identify or process compound document files (CDF), which triggers the vulnerable parser code path
The environment is affected if the installed file utility version falls within the affected ranges (5.01 or lower, or versions 3.30-3.41) AND the command is used to process compound document 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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade the file utility to version 5.02 or later, or avoid processing untrusted compound document files with the file command.
file 5.02 or later (recommended: latest stable release)
- 1. Identify the file command package installed on the system (e.g., using package manager like apt, yum, or checking the binary version with 'file --version')
- 2. Update the package to the latest available version from your distribution's repositories, or download the latest stable release from the official file command distribution
- 3. Verify the installed version is 5.02 or later using 'file --version'
- 4. Test that the file command correctly handles compound document files without crashing or buffer overflow
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3930 — 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-2009-3930 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