Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2015-8875
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 overflows in the (1) pixops_composite_nearest, (2) pixops_composite_color_nearest, and (3) pixops_process functions in pixops/pixops.c in gdk-pixbuf before 2.33.1 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted image, which triggers a heap-based buffer overflow.
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 confidenceMultiple integer overflows in the pixops_composite_nearest, pixops_composite_color_nearest, and pixops_process functions in gdk-pixbuf's pixops/pixops.c allow remote attackers to trigger heap-based buffer overflows via crafted images, leading to denial of service or potential arbitrary code execution.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0<= 2.33CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Confirm gdk-pixbuf is installedRun `dpkg -l | grep gdk-pixbuf` on Debian-based systems, or `pkg-config --modversion gdk-pixbuf-2.0` to query the library version directlyAffected if gdk-pixbuf is not installed or the command fails
-
Identify the installed gdk-pixbuf versionCompare the version output from `dpkg -l gdk-pixbuf` or `gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders --version` against the affected range (anything <= 2.33)Affected if The installed version is 2.33 or lower
-
Verify the pixops library existsCheck for the presence of libpixops.so or libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so in standard library paths (e.g., `ls /usr/lib/*/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so*`)Affected if The pixops component (gdk-pixbuf library) is present on the system
-
Determine if image processing with gdk-pixbuf is in useInspect running processes for applications that load images using gdk-pixbuf (e.g., GTK-based applications, image viewers, thumbnail generators). Use `ldd <binary>` to check for gdk-pixbuf dependencies, or examine system logs for image loading activityAffected if Applications using gdk-pixbuf to process untrusted images are running
You are affected if gdk-pixbuf version 2.33 or lower is installed AND applications use gdk-pixbuf to process image files, as the integer overflows in pixops can be triggered by crafted images.
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 gdk-pixbuf to version 2.33.1 or later to patch the integer overflow vulnerabilities in the pixops image processing functions.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,736.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8875 — 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-2015-8875 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