Ubuntu LinuxOperating system · Canonical
CVE-2015-8924
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 archive_read_format_tar_read_header function in archive_read_support_format_tar.c in libarchive before 3.2.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a crafted tar file.
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 archive_read_format_tar_read_header function in libarchive before 3.2.0 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability when parsing tar file headers, allowing remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted tar files.
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
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 12.04= 14.04= 15.10= 16.04<= 3.1.901a= 12.0= 12.0= 12.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify if libarchive is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep libarchive' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -qa | grep libarchive' (RHEL/SUSE) to list installed libarchive packagesAffected if libarchive package is present on the system
-
Determine installed libarchive versionRun 'dpkg -l libarchive13' or 'rpm -q libarchive' to retrieve the exact version number, or use 'libarchive --version' if the command-line tool is availableAffected if version returned is 3.1.901a or earlier, or any version below 3.2.0
-
Check for applications using libarchive to process tar filesRun 'ldd /path/to/binary | grep libarchive' on tar-handling utilities such as 'tar', 'bsdtar', or archive managers to see if they link to libarchiveAffected if binaries that parse tar files are linked to a vulnerable libarchive version (< 3.2.0)
-
Verify tar file processing capability is in useReview system logs or user documentation to confirm whether the system or any installed applications process tar archives (this is the vulnerable code path)Affected if tar archive parsing functionality is actively used or enabled with a vulnerable libarchive version present
The system is affected if libarchive version 3.1.901a or earlier (or any version below 3.2.0) is installed and tools capable of parsing tar files are available on the system.
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 libarchive to version 3.2.0 or later to patch the vulnerability, and avoid processing untrusted tar files until the update is applied.
Fix this in Ubuntu Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8924 — 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-2015-8924 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