FedoraOperating system · Fedoraproject
CVE-2020-13999
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 · uneditedScaleViewPortExtEx in libemf.cpp in libEMF (aka ECMA-234 Metafile Library) 1.0.12 allows an integer overflow and denial of service via a crafted EMF file.
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 confidenceAn integer overflow vulnerability exists in the ScaleViewPortExtEx function in libemf.cpp of libEMF version 1.0.12. When parsing a specially crafted EMF (Enhanced Metafile) file, the integer overflow can lead to denial of service conditions.
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
FedoraOperating system
= 31= 32<= 1.0.12CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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.
-
Check installed libEMF library versionOn Fedora systems, run: rpm -q libEMF or rpm -qa | grep -i libemf. On other systems, check for libEMF library files (libEMF.so, libEMF.dll, libEMF.dylib) and query their version using the system's library query tool.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.12 or lower, or the package version is not available (indicating an unpatched system).
-
Identify applications using libEMFSearch for binaries that link to libEMF by running: ldd $(which *) 2>/dev/null | grep -i emf or on Fedora: rpm -q --whatrequires libEMFAffected if Any application is linked against libEMF and processes EMF files from untrusted sources.
-
Detect EMF file processing activityMonitor for processes or applications that handle .emf or .wmf files. Check application logs, file access patterns, or review application configurations for EMF import/processing features.Affected if Applications are actively parsing EMF files, particularly from untrusted or external sources.
-
Verify system package status on FedoraIf running Fedora 31 or 32, check package update status: dnf check-update libEMF or dnf updateinfo list installed | grep libEMFAffected if Running Fedora 31 or 32 with an outdated or unpatched libEMF package.
The environment is affected if libEMF version 1.0.12 or lower is installed and any application uses it to parse EMF files, especially from untrusted external sources.
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 to a patched version of libEMF if available, or implement proper bounds checking in the ScaleViewPortExtEx function to prevent integer overflows when processing EMF files from untrusted sources.
Fix this in Fedora
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-13999 — 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-2020-13999 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