CVE-2024-33870
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 Artifex Ghostscript before 10.03.1. There is path traversal (via a crafted PostScript document) to arbitrary files if the current directory is in the permitted paths. For example, there can be a transformation of ../../foo to ./../../foo and this will grant access if ./ is permitted.
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 confidenceGhostscript before 10.03.1 contains a path traversal vulnerability where a crafted PostScript document can access arbitrary files outside permitted paths. The attack exploits a transformation where ../../foo becomes ./../../foo, bypassing path validation when the current directory (.) is in the permitted paths list.
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< 10.03.1CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 installed Ghostscript versionRun 'gs --version' or 'gs -v' to determine the Ghostscript version numberAffected if The version is less than 10.03.1 (for example, 10.03.0, 10.02.0, or any earlier release)
-
Locate Ghostscript permitted paths configurationInspect the Ghostscript configuration files or run 'gs -h' to view search path settings; common config locations include /etc/ghostscript or user-specific resource pathsAffected if The current directory (.) is included in the permitted or search paths list
-
Verify path traversal is possibleAttempt to access a file outside intended directories using a PostScript document with path traversal sequences such as '../../etc/passwd' when the current directory is in permitted pathsAffected if Ghostscript allows reading files outside permitted directories when . is in the path list, enabling the transformation of ../../foo to ./../../foo to bypass validation
You are affected if Ghostscript version is below 10.03.1 AND the current directory (.) is included in the permitted paths configuration, allowing path traversal attacks.
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 · scoped10.03.1
Upgrade Ghostscript to version 10.03.1 or later, or remove the current directory (.) from the permitted paths configuration to prevent traversal attacks.
Ghostscript 10.03.1
- Check current Ghostscript version using 'gs --version' or 'rpm -q ghostscript' / 'dpkg -l ghostscript'
- Update Ghostscript to version 10.03.1 or later using your system's package manager (e.g., 'sudo apt update && sudo apt install ghostscript' for Debian/Ubuntu, 'sudo yum update ghostscript' for RHEL/CentOS)
- Verify the new version is installed by running 'gs --version' and confirming it shows 10.03.1 or higher
- Test that PostScript documents process correctly after the update
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-33870 — 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-2024-33870 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