FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2014-8484
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 · uneditedThe srec_scan function in bfd/srec.c in libdbfd in GNU binutils before 2.25 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a small S-record.
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 srec_scan function in bfd/srec.c within libdbfd (part of GNU binutils before version 2.25) contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability triggered by parsing specially crafted small S-record files, allowing remote attackers to cause a denial of service via the resulting memory access violation.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 19= 20= 21
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 10.04= 12.04= 14.04= 14.10<= 2.24CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 installed binutils versionRun `binutils --version` or `ld -V` to determine the installed binutils versionAffected if Version is 2.24 or lower (any version <= 2.24 is affected)
-
Verify S-record file processing capabilityCheck if the `srec` or `srecord` tool from binutils is available on the system by running `which srec` or checking for srec-related binaries in /usr/bin/Affected if S-record processing tools are present and the system processes S-record files
-
Identify S-record file parsing in useSearch for applications or scripts that invoke `objcopy` with S-record format output (e.g., `-O srec`, `-O ihex`) or directly call the bfd library for S-record parsingAffected if Any workflow processes small S-record files (typically under 256 bytes) using vulnerable binutils components
-
Review application dependenciesInspect linked libraries using `ldd <application>` or check package dependencies to see if libbfd is in use for S-record handlingAffected if Applications link against libbfd and process S-record input files
A system is affected if it runs binutils version 2.24 or earlier AND actively processes small S-record files using the bfd library's srec_scan function.
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 binutils 2.25 or later which contains the corrected bounds checking in the srec_scan function; alternatively, sanitize or reject small S-record files before processing with vulnerable binutils versions.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-8484 — 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-2014-8484 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