CVE-2015-8384
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 · uneditedPCRE before 8.38 mishandles the /(?J)(?'d'(?'d'\g{d}))/ pattern and related patterns with certain recursive back references, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted regular expression, as demonstrated by a JavaScript RegExp object encountered by Konqueror, a related issue to CVE-2015-8392 and CVE-2015-8395.
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 confidencePCRE library versions before 8.38 fail to properly handle certain recursive backreferences in regex patterns like /(?J)(?'d'(?'d'\g{d}))/. This mishandling causes a buffer overflow when processing crafted regular expressions, potentially allowing remote code execution or denial of service.
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<= 8.37CVSS 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
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed PCRE library versionRun 'pcre-config --version' for command-line PCRE installation. Alternatively, check your system's package manager: 'dpkg -l | grep libpcre' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -qa | grep pcre' (RHEL/CentOS). For application-linked PCRE, use 'ldd <application_binary> | grep pcre' or examine the shared library file directly.Affected if the displayed version is 8.37 or earlier
-
Check PCRE shared library file versionIf PCRE is installed as a shared library, run 'ls -la /usr/lib/libpcre*' or 'ls -la /usr/lib64/libpcre*' and check the file timestamp/version. You can also use 'strings /usr/lib/libpcre.so.1 | grep -E "^8\.[0-9]+"' to extract version info from the binary.Affected if the library file resolves to version 8.37 or lower
-
Determine if applications process regex patterns from external sourcesReview your application configuration and code to identify whether untrusted or user-supplied input is passed to PCRE regex compilation functions (pcre_compile or similar). Check for regex endpoints, search features, or pattern-matching logic that accepts external input.Affected if your application or service compiles regex patterns from untrusted or user-controlled sources using the vulnerable PCRE library
You are affected if the installed PCRE library version is 8.37 or earlier AND your system or applications process regex patterns from untrusted sources using that library.
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 PCRE library to version 8.38 or later. Additionally, sanitize and validate all regex patterns from untrusted sources before passing them to the PCRE engine.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8384 — 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-2015-8384 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