Ubuntu LinuxOperating system · Canonical
CVE-2016-0795
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 · uneditedLibreOffice before 5.0.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted LwpTocSuperLayout record in a LotusWordPro (lwp) document.
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 confidenceLibreOffice before 5.0.5 contains a memory corruption vulnerability in its LotusWordPro (.lwp) document import filter. When parsing a crafted LwpTocSuperLayout record within a malicious .lwp file, the parser fails to properly validate bounds or handle memory, leading to memory corruption that can cause denial of service or potentially allow 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
Ubuntu LinuxOperating system
= 12.04= 14.04= 15.10<= 5.0.4CVSS 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 LibreOffice installationRun 'dpkg -l | grep -i libreoffice' on Ubuntu/Debian or 'rpm -qa | grep -i libreoffice' on RHEL-based systems to list installed LibreOffice packagesAffected if LibreOffice is not installed on the system
-
Identify installed LibreOffice versionRun 'libreoffice --version' or 'apt-cache policy libreoffice-writer' to retrieve the exact version numberAffected if The version number is 5.0.4 or lower, or the package version is <= 5.0.4
-
Verify LotusWordPro filter existsCheck for the presence of the LWP import filter component in the LibreOffice program directory, typically found in /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/ or /opt/libreoffice*/program/ - look for files related to 'lwp' or 'lotuswordpro'Affected if The LotusWordPro (.lwp) import filter component is present on the system
-
Detect LotusWordPro documentsSearch for .lwp files in user-accessible directories using 'find ~ -name "*.lwp" 2>/dev/null' or check common document locations like ~/DocumentsAffected if Any .lwp files exist in the user's environment that could be opened with LibreOffice
The system is affected if LibreOffice version 5.0.4 or lower is installed AND the LotusWordPro import filter is present AND the user could potentially open malicious .lwp files.
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 LibreOffice 5.0.5 or later. Until upgrade is possible, avoid opening untrusted LotusWordPro (.lwp) files in LibreOffice. Consider using file type restrictions or sandboxing for users who must handle legacy document formats.
Fix this in Ubuntu Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,768.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-0795 — 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-2016-0795 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