CVE-2018-17794
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 cplus-dem.c in GNU libiberty, as distributed in GNU Binutils 2.31. There is a NULL pointer dereference in work_stuff_copy_to_from when called from iterate_demangle_function.
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 NULL pointer dereference vulnerability exists in cplus-dem.c within GNU libiberty's C++ symbol demangling functionality. When the function work_stuff_copy_to_from is invoked from iterate_demangle_function, a NULL pointer is dereferenced, causing a crash. This could be triggered by specially crafted mangled C++ symbol names passed to the demangler.
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= 2.31CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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 installed binutils versionRun 'binutils --version' or 'ld -v' to get the exact version number of binutils installed on the systemAffected if The version is exactly 2.31 (this is the only affected version per the CVE)
-
Locate c++filt demangling toolRun 'which c++filt' or 'c++filt --version' to verify the C++ symbol demangler is availableAffected if c++filt is present and its version matches binutils 2.31
-
Check for libiberty demangle function usageSearch for binaries or scripts that link against libiberty and call demangle functions (e.g., grep -r 'cplus_demangle' or check ldd output for libiberty dependency)Affected if Any application uses libiberty's demangling functions and processes external/mangled C++ symbols
-
Verify input source to demanglerIdentify if any service, tool, or script passes user-supplied or network-received mangled symbols to c++filt or the demangle APIAffected if Untrusted mangled C++ symbol names can reach the demangling functionality
A system is affected only if binutils version is exactly 2.31 AND the C++ demangling functionality processes untrusted or attacker-controlled mangled symbol names.
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 dataApply the upstream patch from GNU Binutils which adds proper NULL pointer validation in work_stuff_copy_to_from before dereferencing. If unable to patch immediately, restrict or sanitize input to the demangling function to prevent attacker-controlled symbols from reaching the vulnerable code path.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-17794 — 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-2018-17794 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