CVE-2021-28306
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 the fltk crate before 0.15.3 for Rust. There is a NULL pointer dereference during attempted use of a multi label type if the image is nonexistent.
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 confidenceThe fltk crate before version 0.15.3 for Rust contains a NULL pointer dereference vulnerability. When a user attempts to use a multi-label type (Fl_Multi_Label) with a nonexistent or NULL image, the code attempts to dereference a NULL pointer, causing a crash or denial of service.
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< 0.15.3CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/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 Cargo.toml for fltk dependencyLook for 'fltk' or 'fltk-rs' in the [dependencies] section of your project's Cargo.toml fileAffected if The fltk crate is listed as a dependency with a version less than 0.15.3 (e.g., 0.15.2, 0.15.1, or any 0.15.x version below 0.15.3)
-
Check Cargo.lock for fltk versionSearch for 'name = "fltk"' in your Cargo.lock file and note the version in the corresponding [[package]] sectionAffected if The fltk crate version resolved in Cargo.lock is less than 0.15.3
-
Inspect code for Fl_Multi_Label usage with imagesSearch your source files for 'Fl_Multi_Label' and examine whether the .image() method or image parameter is used on the labelAffected if Your code creates an Fl_Multi_Label and assigns an image that could be NULL, nonexistent, or not properly initialized
You are affected if your project depends on the fltk crate version below 0.15.3 AND your code uses Fl_Multi_Label with potentially NULL or uninitialized images.
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 data0.15.3
Update the fltk crate dependency in Cargo.toml to version 0.15.3 or later, which includes proper null validation before image pointer dereference.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-28306 — 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-2021-28306 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