VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-35997: GTKWave · Improper Validation of Array Index

Affects GTKWaveSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Debiandebian/gtkwave`pkg:deb/debian/gtkwave`Other threats	Affected =3.3.115	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement several specific mitigations beyond generic advice: 1) Immediately audit and inventory all GTKWave installations to identify affected versions (3.3.115). 2) Restrict GTKWave usage to trusted users and environments, limiting exposure to untrusted .fst files. 3) Implement strict file validation policies and sandbox GTKWave execution where possible to contain potential exploitation. 4) Educate engineering and verification teams about the risks of opening unverified .fst files, emphasizing safe handling and source verification. 5) Monitor internal communications and file-sharing platforms for suspicious .fst files that could be malicious. 6) Engage with GTKWave maintainers or community to track patch releases and apply updates promptly once available. 7) Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions capable of detecting anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts within engineering workstations. 8) Where feasible, use alternative waveform viewers or tools with no known vulnerabilities until a patch is released. These targeted mitigations address the specific attack vector and user interaction requirement, reducing the likelihood of successful exploitation.

Description

Multiple improper array index validation vulnerabilities exist in the fstReaderIterBlocks2 tdelta functionality of GTKWave 3.3.115. A specially crafted .fst file can lead to arbitrary code execution. A victim would need to open a malicious file to trigger these vulnerabilities.This vulnerability concerns the tdelta indexing when signal_lens is 2 or more.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those involved in semiconductor design, hardware verification, and embedded systems development, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Many research institutions, universities, and companies in Europe rely on GTKWave as part of their hardware simulation toolchain. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized code execution, allowing attackers to compromise development environments, steal proprietary designs, or disrupt critical engineering workflows. Given the local attack vector and requirement for user interaction, the threat is primarily from targeted spear-phishing or supply chain attacks where malicious .fst files are delivered to engineers or analysts. The impact extends beyond confidentiality to integrity and availability, as attackers could alter simulation results or cause denial of service. This could delay product development cycles, cause financial losses, and damage reputations. Additionally, compromised development environments could serve as pivot points for further attacks within corporate networks, increasing the overall risk posture for European tech firms.

CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 03:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-129

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats