CVE-2018-25154
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 · uneditedGNU Barcode 0.99 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in its code 93 encoding process that allows attackers to trigger memory corruption. Attackers can exploit boundary errors during input file processing to potentially execute arbitrary code on the affected system.
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 confidenceGNU Barcode 0.99 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in its code 93 encoding process. The vulnerability exists due to boundary errors during input file processing, leading to memory corruption that can be exploited for arbitrary code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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.
-
Verify GNU Barcode installationRun 'which barcode' or check for barcode executable in common paths like /usr/bin/barcodeAffected if GNU Barcode is not present on the system, then not affected
-
Determine installed versionRun 'barcode --version' or check package manager (dpkg -l | grep barcode, rpm -qa | grep barcode)Affected if Version is 0.99 or falls within the affected range; compare to the vulnerable version
-
Identify code 93 encoding usageReview application code or scripts that invoke barcode to see if '-t' or type 93 is specified, or if code 93 is used in any barcode generation workflowsAffected if Code 93 encoding type is actively used in barcode generation
-
Inspect input file processingExamine any automated workflows or batch processes that pass external input files to barcode for code 93 encodingAffected if External or user-supplied files are processed through the code 93 encoding function without prior validation
The environment is affected only if GNU Barcode version 0.99 (or an unpatched version) is installed AND code 93 encoding is being used to process input files, as the buffer overflow occurs specifically in the code 93 encoding process during file handling.
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 dataImplement proper bounds checking and input validation in the code 93 encoding function; sanitize all input data before processing to prevent buffer overflows. Upgrade to a patched version if available.
- 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-2018-25154 — 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-2018-25154 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