CVE-2018-12918
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 · uneditedIn libpbc.a in PBC through 2017-03-02, there is a Segmentation fault in _pbcB_register_fields in bootstrap.c.
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 confidenceA segmentation fault occurs in the _pbcB_register_fields function in bootstrap.c within the PBC (Pairing-Based Cryptography) library's libpbc.a. This crash happens during field registration in pairing operations, likely due to improper memory handling or null pointer dereference when processing cryptographic parameters.
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<= 2017-03-02CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 PBC library in the environmentSearch for libpbc.a or libpbc.so files in standard library directories (e.g., /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib) and check for pbc header files (pairing.h, element.h) in include directoriesAffected if PBC library files are found in the system
-
Determine PBC library versionCheck the build date or version information of the installed PBC library. If source is available, check the git commit date or check the last modification date of source files, particularly bootstrap.c. If the library was built before 2017-03-02, it is likely vulnerableAffected if The PBC library version or build date is on or before 2017-03-02
-
Identify applications using PBC pairing operationsSearch application code or binaries for calls to pairing_init, pairing_init_intern, or other pairing-related functions that initialize cryptographic pairings. These functions eventually call _pbcB_register_fieldsAffected if Applications or code use PBC pairing initialization functions
-
Verify the vulnerable code path is reachableIf source code is available, examine bootstrap.c to confirm _pbcB_register_fields is called during normal pairing operations. Review if element_init_with_var or similar functions that trigger field registration are invoked at runtimeAffected if Code execution path reaches the _pbcB_register_fields function with the vulnerable memory handling logic
The environment is affected if PBC library version is on or before 2017-03-02 and applications execute pairing operations that invoke the _pbcB_register_fields function in bootstrap.c, causing the segmentation fault.
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 PBC library to a version after 2017-03-02 that includes the fix, or apply the specific patch addressing the _pbcB_register_fields function in bootstrap.c to resolve the segmentation fault.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 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 $4,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-12918 — 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-2018-12918 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