CVE-2010-2055
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 · uneditedGhostscript 8.71 and earlier reads initialization files from the current working directory, which allows local users to execute arbitrary PostScript commands via a Trojan horse file, related to improper support for the -P- option to the gs program, as demonstrated using gs_init.ps, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-4820.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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= 6.0= 6.01= 6.50= 7.00= 7.03= 7.04= 8.00= 8.11= 8.12= 8.13= 8.14= 8.50= 6.0= 8.11<= 8.71= 8.01= 8.15= 8.50= 8.51= 8.54= 8.56= 8.57= 8.60= 8.61= 8.62= 8.63CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 dataScan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2055 — 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- bugzilla.redhat.com
- bugs.ghostscript.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- secunia.com
- www.vupen.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- bugs.ghostscript.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- bugs.debian.org
- bugs.debian.org
- bugs.ghostscript.com
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- lists.fedoraproject.org
- lists.opensuse.org
- savannah.gnu.org
- security.gentoo.org
- www.osvdb.org
- www.securityfocus.com
- www.securityfocus.com
- bugzilla.novell.com
- rhn.redhat.com
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2010-2055 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