CVE-2024-32488
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 · uneditedIn Foxit PDF Reader and Editor before 2024.1, Local Privilege Escalation could occur during update checks because weak permissions on the update-service folder allow attackers to place crafted DLL files there.
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 confidenceFoxit PDF Reader and Editor before 2024.1 contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability where weak file permissions on the application's update-service folder allow local attackers to write crafted malicious DLL files into the folder. When Foxit's update check process runs (typically with elevated privileges), it loads these planted DLLs, enabling the attacker to execute code with elevated privileges.
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< 10.1.12.37872>= 11.0.0, < 11.2.8.53842>= 12.0.0, < 12.1.4.15400>= 13.0.0, < 13.0.1.21693>= 2023.1.0.15510, < 2023.3.0.23028< 2023.3.0.23028CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/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 Foxit PDF installation and versionCheck installed programs for Foxit PDF Reader or Foxit PDF Editor, then locate the executable (typically in Program Files/Foxit) and check its file version propertyAffected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: < 10.1.12.37872; >= 11.0.0 and < 11.2.8.53842; >= 12.0.0 and < 12.1.4.15400; >= 13.0.0 and < 13.0.1.21693; >= 2023.1.0.15510 and < 2023.3.0.23028 (for Editor), or < 2023.3.0.23028 (for Reader)
-
Locate the update-service folderSearch the Foxit installation directory for a folder named 'update-service' or similar directory related to the update mechanismAffected if The update-service folder exists within the Foxit installation directory
-
Check write permissions on the update-service folderUse icacls or file Explorer security properties to view permissions on the update-service folder; verify which users or groups have WRITE or WRITE_DAC permissionsAffected if Non-privileged users or the Users group have WRITE or WRITE_DAC permissions on the folder, allowing them to place files
-
Verify if Foxit update process runs with elevated privilegesCheck the Foxit update service configuration in Services or Task Scheduler for the account it runs under; confirm if it executes with Administrator or SYSTEM privilegesAffected if The Foxit update process is configured to run with elevated privileges (as Administrator or SYSTEM account)
A user is affected if Foxit PDF Reader or Editor is installed at an affected version AND the update-service folder has weak write permissions that allow non-privileged users to place DLL files that will be loaded by the elevated update process.
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 · scoped10.1.12.3787211.2.8.5384212.1.4.15400
Upgrade to Foxit PDF Reader and Editor 2024.1 or later, which addresses the weak permissions issue. Alternatively, restrict write permissions on the update-service folder to prevent unauthorized user placement of DLL files.
Pdf Editor: 10.1.12.37872, 11.2.8.53842, 12.1.4.15400, or 13.0.1.21693 (depending on your release branch); Pdf Reader: 2023.3.0.23028
- Identify the currently installed Foxit PDF Reader or Editor version from Help > About
- For Pdf Editor 10.x: upgrade to version 10.1.12.37872 or later
- For Pdf Editor 11.x: upgrade to version 11.2.8.53842 or later
- For Pdf Editor 12.x: upgrade to version 12.1.4.15400 or later
- For Pdf Editor 13.x: upgrade to version 13.0.1.21693 or later
- For Pdf Reader: upgrade to version 2023.3.0.23028 or later
- Restart the application after upgrading
- Verify the installed version reflects the patched release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32488 — 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-2024-32488 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