CVE-2015-1381
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 unspecified vulnerabilities in pcrs.c in Privoxy before 3.0.23 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation fault or memory consumption) via unspecified vectors.
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 · moderate confidencePrivoxy before version 3.0.23 contains multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the pcrs.c component (which handles PCRE regular expression processing). Remote attackers can trigger these flaws to cause denial of service through either segmentation faults or excessive memory consumption via unspecified vectors.
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= 7.0= 13.1= 13.2<= 3.0.22CVSS 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 Privoxy versionRun `privoxy --version` or query the package manager: `dpkg -s privoxy` on Debian, `rpm -qi privoxy` on OpenSUSEAffected if The version is 3.0.22 or earlier, or the package version is below 3.0.23
-
Locate the Privoxy configuration fileCommon locations are /etc/privoxy/config or /etc/privoxy/action fileAffected if The configuration exists and contains pcrs-related directives (actions that use PCRE regex processing)
-
Verify pcrs module is in useSearch the Privoxy config and action files for 'pcrs' strings using `grep -r pcrs /etc/privoxy/`Affected if pcrs directives are found in any action or config file, meaning the vulnerable PCRE processing component is enabled
You are affected if Privoxy version is 3.0.22 or earlier AND the pcrs module (PCRE regular expression processing) is configured and active in your Privoxy installation.
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 Privoxy to version 3.0.23 or later to address the vulnerabilities in pcrs.c. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider restricting network exposure of the Privoxy service.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-1381 — 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-2015-1381 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