FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2016-9108
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 · uneditedInteger overflow in the js_regcomp function in regexp.c in Artifex Software, Inc. MuJS before commit b6de34ac6d8bb7dd5461c57940acfbd3ee7fd93e allows attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted regular expression.
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 confidenceInteger overflow in the js_regcomp function in regexp.c in MuJS allows attackers to cause denial of service via crafted regular expressions that trigger overflow during regex compilation.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 23= 24= 25<= 2016-10-31CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Check if MuJS is installed on FedoraRun `rpm -qa | grep -i mujs` or `dnf list installed | grep -i mujs`Affected if No output means MuJS is not installed and the system is not affected
-
Verify the installed MuJS package version on FedoraRun `rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}' mujs` or check the package details via `rpm -qi mujs`Affected if The version falls within Fedora 23, 24, or 25 which are listed as affected
-
Check MuJS binary version if directly executableRun `mujs --version` if the binary is in PATH, or locate it with `which mujs` and check its versionAffected if Version shows a date of 2016-10-31 or earlier, indicating the vulnerable version
-
Confirm the vulnerable regexp.c component is presentLocate the MuJS installation and verify regexp.c exists: `find /usr -name regexp.c 2>/dev/null` or check the package contents with `rpm -ql mujs | grep regexp`Affected if regexp.c is found in the installation, indicating the regex compilation code is present and could be exploited
-
Test regex compilation with a potentially triggering patternUse MuJS to compile a regex that could trigger the integer overflow (this is context-dependent and requires knowing the specific pattern that triggers the vulnerability)Affected if The regex compilation causes a crash or abnormal termination, confirming the vulnerability is present
The system is affected if MuJS is installed with a version from Fedora 23, 24, or 25, or any MuJS version dated 2016-10-31 or earlier, and the regex compilation feature is available.
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 MuJS to the patched version (commit b6de34ac6d8bb7dd5461c57940acfbd3ee7fd93e or later) that contains proper bounds checking in the regex compilation routine.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9108 — 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-2016-9108 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