CVE-2012-4405
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 underflows in the icmLut_allocate function in International Color Consortium (ICC) Format library (icclib), as used in Ghostscript 9.06 and Argyll Color Management System, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted (1) PostScript or (2) PDF file with embedded images, which triggers a heap-based buffer overflow. NOTE: this issue is also described as an array index error.
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 confidenceInteger underflows in the icmLut_allocate function of the ICC Format library (icclib) allow crafted PostScript or PDF files with embedded images to trigger heap-based buffer overflows, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability stems from insufficient bounds checking when allocating memory for color lookup table structures.
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 dataall versionsall versions= 9.06CVSS 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.
-
Check Ghostscript versionRun 'gs --version' or check installed package version via system package manager (dpkg, rpm, etc.)Affected if Version equals exactly 9.06
-
Check for Argyllcms installationLook for argyllcms packages or binaries (e.g., 'dispwin', 'gamma') via 'which' command or package managerAffected if Argyllcms is installed and processes untrusted ICC profiles from PostScript/PDF files
-
Check for icclib library presenceSearch for libicclib or related shared objects in system library paths (ldconfig -p | grep icc, or find /usr/lib -name '*icc*')Affected if icclib library is present and linked to applications processing untrusted content
-
Identify applications using icclibRun 'ldd' on Ghostscript binary or check which applications load libicclib.soAffected if Applications using icclib process PostScript or PDF files from untrusted sources
-
Verify PostScript/PDF processing pipelineReview logs or audit configurations for applications that handle embedded ICC profiles in PostScript/PDF documentsAffected if The system processes PostScript or PDF files with embedded ICC profiles without sanitization
You are affected if Ghostscript version 9.06 is installed, or if Argyllcms/icclib is present and used to process untrusted PostScript or PDF files with embedded ICC profiles.
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 Ghostscript to a version after 9.06 and apply available patches for Argyll Color Management System. Sanitize or reject ICC profiles from untrusted sources before processing.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4405 — 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-2012-4405 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