Enterprise LinuxOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2023-43789
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was found in libXpm where a vulnerability exists due to a boundary condition, a local user can trigger an out-of-bounds read error and read contents of memory on the 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 confidenceA boundary condition vulnerability in libXpm allows local users to trigger an out-of-bounds read, potentially exposing sensitive memory contents. The issue exists in the X PixMap image handling code where improper bounds checking permits reading beyond allocated buffers.
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
Enterprise LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0
FedoraOperating system
= 38< 3.5.17CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 if libXpm library is installedOn RHEL/Fedora systems, run: rpm -qa | grep -i libxpm or check for the library file with: find /usr -name 'libXpm*' 2>/dev/nullAffected if No libXpm library is found on the system (not affected)
-
Determine the installed libXpm versionRun: rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}' libxpm on RHEL 8/9 or Fedora 38Affected if Version cannot be determined or package is not installed
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare the installed version number to the affected ranges: RHEL 8.0, RHEL 9.0, Fedora 38, or any version earlier than 3.5.17 for upstream libxpmAffected if Installed version is 8.0, 9.0, 38, or less than 3.5.17 for upstream builds
The system is affected if libXpm version is exactly 8.0, 9.0, 38, or below 3.5.17 and applications process XPM image files.
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.
dbcve · scoped3.5.17
Update libXpm to the latest patched version provided by the vendor or distribution maintainers. As this is a local attack requiring no special privileges, prioritize patching systems where untrusted XPM images may be processed.
libxpm >= 3.5.17
- Identify the libxpm package currently installed: dnf list installed libXpm or rpm -qa | grep -i libxpm
- Update the package to the fixed version: dnf update libXpm
- Alternatively, force update to a specific version if available: dnf update --enablerepo=* libXpm-3.5.17 or newer
- Verify the updated version: rpm -q libXpm
- Confirm the vulnerability is resolved by checking the installed version is 3.5.17 or later: rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}.%{RELEASE}' libXpm
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Enterprise Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2023-43789 — 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-2023-43789 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