CVE-2018-13420
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 · uneditedGoogle gperftools 2.7 has a memory leak in malloc_extension.cc, related to MallocExtension::Register and InitModule. NOTE: the software maintainer indicates that this is not a bug; it is only a false-positive report from the LeakSanitizer program
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 confidenceGoogle gperftools 2.7 contains a reported memory leak in malloc_extension.cc involving MallocExtension::Register and InitModule functions. The issue was flagged by LeakSanitizer. However, the software maintainer explicitly states this is not a bug but a false-positive report from LeakSanitizer.
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= 2.7CVSS 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:3.0/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 gperftools is installedRun 'which gperftools' or check for gperftools libraries in common paths like /usr/lib/, /usr/local/lib/Affected if gperftools binaries or libraries are present on the system
-
Identify gperftools versionRun 'gperftools --version' or check the library version file, or inspect the source if building from sourceAffected if version is 2.7
-
Verify the affected source file existsLocate malloc_extension.cc in the gperftools source tree or installed headersAffected if malloc_extension.cc containing MallocExtension::Register and InitModule functions is present
-
Confirm the specific functions existInspect malloc_extension.cc for MallocExtension::Register and MallocExtension::InitModule function implementationsAffected if these specific functions exist in the codebase
-
Check if LeakSanitizer is in use and flagging this issueRun applications built with gperftools under LeakSanitizer (-fsanitize=leak) and check for reported memory leaks in malloc_extension.ccAffected if LeakSanitizer is enabled and reports a memory leak involving MallocExtension::Register or InitModule in malloc_extension.cc
A user is affected only if running gperftools version 2.7 AND using LeakSanitizer which reports this specific memory leak - noting that the maintainer has confirmed this is a false positive.
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 dataSince the maintainer confirms this is a false positive from LeakSanitizer, no code remediation is required. If LeakSanitizer reports this issue in builds, consider adjusting sanitizer thresholds or suppressing this specific finding as a known false positive.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-13420 — 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-2018-13420 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