ghsa-q7qj-9xh3-f579
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-01 01:46
Modified
2022-05-01 01:46
Details

Heap-based buffer overflow in psd.c for ImageMagick 6.1.0, 6.1.7, and possibly earlier versions allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a .PSD image file with a large number of layers.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2005-0005"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2005-05-02T04:00:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Heap-based buffer overflow in psd.c for ImageMagick 6.1.0, 6.1.7, and possibly earlier versions allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a .PSD image file with a large number of layers.",
  "id": "GHSA-q7qj-9xh3-f579",
  "modified": "2022-05-01T01:46:49Z",
  "published": "2022-05-01T01:46:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2005-0005"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A9925"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=110608222117215\u0026w=2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2005/dsa-646"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200501-37.xml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.idefense.com/application/poi/display?id=184\u0026type=vulnerabilities"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2005-070.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2005-071.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.