Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2016-9601
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 · uneditedghostscript before version 9.21 is vulnerable to a heap based buffer overflow that was found in the ghostscript jbig2_decode_gray_scale_image function which is used to decode halftone segments in a JBIG2 image. A document (PostScript or PDF) with an embedded, specially crafted, jbig2 image could trigger a segmentation fault in ghostscript.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Ghostscript's jbig2_decode_gray_scale_image function when decoding halftone segments in JBIG2 images. Specially crafted PostScript or PDF documents with embedded malicious JBIG2 images can trigger a segmentation fault via the overflow.
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= 9.0< 9.21<= 0.13CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Ghostscript versionRun `gs --version` or `gs -v` to determine the Ghostscript versionAffected if The version is less than 9.21 (e.g., 9.20, 9.19, etc.)
-
Check installed Jbig2dec versionRun `jbig2dec -v` or check the package version via package manager (dpkg -l jbig2dec or rpm -qi jbig2dec)Affected if The version is 0.13 or lower
-
Verify Ghostscript has JBIG2 support enabledRun `gs -h 2>&1 | grep -i jbig` to see if JBIG2 support is compiled inAffected if The output shows jbig2 support is available (the vulnerability requires this module to be loaded)
-
Confirm PDF/PostScript processing capabilityGhostscript is typically used for PDF/PostScript rendering; check if your system runs Ghostscript to process user-submitted documentsAffected if Ghostscript processes PDF or PostScript files from untrusted sources (the attack vector is malicious JBIG2 images embedded in these documents)
You are affected if Ghostscript version is below 9.21 AND Jbig2dec is at version 0.13 or lower AND JBIG2 support is enabled in your Ghostscript installation AND you process PDF/PostScript files from untrusted sources.
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 data9.21
Upgrade Ghostscript to version 9.21 or later to remediate the vulnerability. Review and test systems that depend on Ghostscript functionality after upgrading.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9601 — 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-2016-9601 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