CVE-2018-7441
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 · uneditedLeptonica through 1.75.3 uses hardcoded /tmp pathnames, which might allow local users to overwrite arbitrary files or have unspecified other impact by creating files in advance or winning a race condition, as demonstrated by /tmp/junk_split_image.ps in prog/splitimage2pdf.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 · high confidenceLeptonica through version 1.75.3 contains hardcoded /tmp pathnames in temporary file operations, specifically demonstrated in prog/splitimage2pdf.c with /tmp/junk_split_image.ps. This allows local users to exploit race conditions (TOCTOU) to overwrite arbitrary files or cause unspecified impact by pre-creating files or winning symlink races.
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<= 1.75.3CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Identify if Leptonica is installedRun 'pkg-config --modversion leptonia' or check for liblept.so files in /usr/lib or /usr/local/libAffected if Leptonica library files are present on the system
-
Determine installed Leptonica versionRun 'leptonica-config --version' or check the package manager (dpkg -l | grep leptonica, rpm -qi leptonica)Affected if Version is 1.75.3 or earlier
-
Check for the vulnerable source fileLocate prog/splitimage2pdf.c in the source tree if compiling from source, or search the binary for the string '/tmp/junk_split_image.ps' using 'strings' or 'grep'Affected if The hardcoded path /tmp/junk_split_image.ps is found in source or binary
-
Verify the splitimage2pdf utility is in useCheck if the splitimage2pdf program exists on the system (which splitimage2pdf) and is being invoked by any application or scriptAffected if The splitimage2pdf utility or its functionality is accessible to local users
-
Check for insecure /tmp usage patternsSearch the Leptonica installation or source for other hardcoded /tmp paths using 'grep -r "/tmp"' on the source directory or strings on compiled binariesAffected if Additional hardcoded /tmp paths are found in the Leptonica codebase
A system is affected if Leptonica version 1.75.3 or earlier is installed and the vulnerable splitimage2pdf utility with hardcoded /tmp paths is accessible to local users who could exploit the TOCTOU race condition.
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 dataReplace all hardcoded /tmp pathnames with secure temporary file handling using APIs like mkstemp(), tmpfile(), or tempnam() with proper permissions and race-condition mitigation. Audit the entire codebase for similar hardcoded paths.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-7441 — 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-2018-7441 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