CVE-2018-11095
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 decompileJUMP function in decompile.c in libming through 0.4.8 mishandles cases where the header indicates a file size greater than the actual size, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (Segmentation fault and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact.
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 decompileJUMP function in decompile.c in libming through 0.4.8 does not properly validate that the actual file data matches the size declared in the header. When the header indicates a file size larger than the actual data present, the function attempts to read beyond available buffer bounds, causing a segmentation fault and denial of service.
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<= 0.4.8CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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.
-
Locate libming library on the systemSearch for libming shared library files: 'find /usr -name "*libming*" 2>/dev/null' on Linux, or check common install directories. On systems with package managers, use 'dpkg -l | grep -i ming' (Debian/Ubuntu) or 'rpm -qa | grep -i ming' (RHEL/CentOS).Affected if No libming library is found on the system, meaning it is not installed and not affected.
-
Identify the installed libming versionIf installed via package manager, run 'dpkg -l libming*' or 'rpm -qi ming-libs' to get the version number. If compiled from source, check the version in the source directory or library file metadata.Affected if The installed version is 0.4.8 or lower, indicating the vulnerable version is present.
-
Verify the decompileJUMP function exists in the libraryIf the library file is found (e.g., libming.so or libming.a), inspect the symbols: 'nm -C libming.so | grep decompileJUMP' or 'strings libming.so | grep decompileJUMP'.Affected if The decompileJUMP function symbol is present in the library, confirming the vulnerable code path exists.
-
Identify applications or tools using libmingCheck for applications that link against libming: 'ldd /path/to/binary | grep ming' or search for binaries that reference the library in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin.Affected if Applications using libming are present and process SWF files, meaning the vulnerable code path could be triggered.
A system is affected if libming version 0.4.8 or lower is installed and any application uses it to process SWF files, allowing a crafted file with mismatched header size to trigger the out-of-bounds read in decompileJUMP.
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 libming to a version beyond 0.4.8 if a patched release is available, or implement proper bounds checking in decompileJUMP to validate actual file size against header-declared size before processing.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11095 — 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-2018-11095 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