CVE-2018-11254
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in PoDoFo 0.9.5. There is an Excessive Recursion in the PdfPagesTree::GetPageNode() function of PdfPagesTree.cpp. Remote attackers could leverage this vulnerability to cause a denial of service through a crafted pdf file, a related issue to CVE-2017-8054.
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 confidencePoDoFo 0.9.5 contains an excessive recursion vulnerability in PdfPagesTree::GetPageNode() in PdfPagesTree.cpp. When parsing a specially crafted PDF file with deeply nested page structures, the recursive function calls itself excessively, likely causing a stack overflow and resulting in 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= 0.9.5CVSS 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 PoDoFo library is installedSearch for PoDoFo library files on the system. Common locations: /usr/lib/libpodofo*, /usr/local/lib/libpodofo*, or check package manager listings (dpkg -l | grep podofo, rpm -qa | grep podofo).Affected if PoDoFo library version 0.9.5 is found on the system
-
Confirm the exact PoDoFo versionIf the library is found, query its version using: podofo-config --version, or check the shared object version (ls -la libpodofo*), or examine version info in any application that bundles PoDoFo.Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.9.5
-
Determine if PDF parsing with page tree processing is usedReview application logs, code, or configuration to see if PoDoFo's PDF parsing functionality is actively used, particularly any feature that processes PDF page tree structures (GetPageNode).Affected if The application uses PoDoFo to parse PDF files and process page tree structures
-
Check for deep page nesting in processed PDFsIf possible, inspect any PDF files processed by the application using tools like pdfinfo or pdfdetach to count page tree depth, or review if user-supplied PDFs could contain deeply nested /Pages objects.Affected if PDF files with deeply nested page tree structures (high /Pages recursion depth) are processed by the PoDoFo 0.9.5 library
A system is affected if PoDoFo version 0.9.5 is installed and actively used to parse PDF files that could contain deeply nested page tree structures.
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 PoDoFo to a patched version if available, or implement recursion limits/depth checking in GetPageNode() to prevent unbounded recursion. Input validation on PDF page tree structures can also mitigate this issue.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11254 — 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-2018-11254 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