CVE-2024-3900
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 · uneditedOut-of-bounds array write in Xpdf 4.05 and earlier, triggered by long Unicode sequence in ActualText.
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 confidenceXpdf versions 4.05 and earlier contain an out-of-bounds array write vulnerability in the PDF parsing code. The flaw occurs when processing the ActualText field, which specifies text for accessibility and clipboard operations. A specially crafted PDF containing an excessively long Unicode sequence in the ActualText field triggers the out-of-bounds write, potentially causing denial of service or potentially arbitrary code execution.
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<= 4.05CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify Xpdf installation and versionRun 'xpdf -v' or 'pdftotext -v' from command line, or check package manager (dpkg -l | grep xpdf, rpm -qa | grep xpdf)Affected if Version is 4.05 or earlier
-
Confirm Xpdf binaries are in useCheck running processes with 'ps aux | grep -i xpdf' or look for Xpdf-related executables (xpdf, pdftotext, pdfinfo, pdftoppm) in system PATHAffected if Any Xpdf-related executable from version 4.05 or earlier is running or installed
-
Identify PDF processing workflowsReview system for scripts or applications that call Xpdf utilities to process PDF files. Check common locations: /usr/bin/xpdf*, /usr/local/bin/*pdf*, or look at cron jobs and systemd servicesAffected if Xpdf is configured to automatically process PDF files from any source
-
Assess exposure to untrusted PDFsExamine whether Xpdf is used to open or parse PDFs from external or untrusted sources, such as email attachments, web downloads, or user-uploaded filesAffected if Users or automated systems process PDF files from untrusted or external sources using Xpdf <= 4.05
Environment is affected if Xpdf version 4.05 or earlier is installed and actively used to process PDF files, particularly those from untrusted sources, since the vulnerability triggers during ActualText field parsing.
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 dataUpgrade Xpdf to a version newer than 4.05. If upgrading is not feasible, implement input validation to reject or truncate abnormally long Unicode sequences in PDF ActualText fields before processing. Use PDF sanitization tools to strip or normalize ActualText content from untrusted PDF documents.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3900 — 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-2024-3900 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