Gpl GhostscriptApplication · Artifex

CVE-2010-1869

HIGH · 9.3 CVSS v2.0 Published 2010-05-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Stack-based buffer overflow in the parser function in GhostScript 8.70 and 8.64 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted PostScript file.

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 confidence

Stack-based buffer overflow in GhostScript's parser function affecting versions 8.70 and 8.64, allowing arbitrary code execution via crafted PostScript files.

MitigationUpgrade GhostScript to a patched version newer than 8.70, or apply vendor-supplied security patches if available.

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
Gpl GhostscriptApplication
Affected:= 8.64= 8.70

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate GhostScript installation
    Run 'which gs' on Linux/macOS or 'where gs' on Windows. Also check common paths like /usr/bin/gs, /usr/local/bin/gs, or C:\Program Files\gs on Windows.
    Affected if GhostScript binary is not found - the system is not affected because the product is not installed.
  2. Determine installed version
    Run 'gs --version' or 'gs -v' to obtain the exact version number of GhostScript.
    Affected if Version is exactly 8.64 or exactly 8.70 - these are the affected versions per the CVE.
  3. Verify version is in affected range
    Compare the output from step 2 against the affected versions: 8.64 and 8.70. Note that only these exact versions are vulnerable.
    Affected if The installed version matches 8.64 or 8.70 exactly.
  4. Confirm PostScript processing capability
    GhostScript is a PostScript interpreter. Check if the gs binary is functional and can process PostScript files by running 'gs --help' or processing a test file.
    Affected if GhostScript is installed and functional - the parser vulnerability is present in the code when processing PostScript.

If GhostScript is installed and the version is exactly 8.64 or 8.70, the environment is affected by this buffer overflow vulnerability in the parser function.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade GhostScript to a patched version newer than 8.70, or apply vendor-supplied security patches if available.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

Upgrade to a modern stable Ghostscript release (post-8.70) such as the latest 9.x or 10.x stable branch

  1. 1. Identify the current Ghostscript version by running 'gs --version' or 'gs -v'
  2. 2. Verify the installed version matches one of the affected versions (8.64 or 8.70)
  3. 3. Remove the vulnerable Ghostscript installation using the appropriate package manager for your system
  4. 4. Install a modern stable version of Ghostscript from official sources such as the Ghostscript website (www.ghostscript.com) or your distribution's package repository
  5. 5. Verify the new version is installed by running 'gs --version' and confirm it is newer than 8.70
  6. 6. Test that essential PostScript and PDF operations function correctly with the new version
Caveat Modern Ghostscript versions may have changes in deprecated features or output behavior; test critical document workflows after upgrade

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Gpl Ghostscript Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
8.0 hours of engineering $1,390
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1869 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-1869 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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