CVE-2023-4042VulnerabilityPublished 23 Aug 2023Updated 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-4042: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2020-16305

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% 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:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 23 Aug 2023
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 2026-10-25.

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 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should proactively monitor Red Hat security advisories for patches addressing CVE-2023-4042 and apply them promptly once available. Until patches are deployed, restrict local access to systems running RHEL 8 with ghostscript to trusted users only. Implement strict user privilege management to minimize the number of users who can execute or interact with ghostscript processes. Employ application whitelisting and endpoint detection to identify and block suspicious attempts to trigger ghostscript. Consider isolating document processing services in sandboxed or containerized environments to limit the impact of potential crashes. Regularly audit and monitor logs for unusual activity related to ghostscript usage. Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted files or prompts that could trigger the vulnerability. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly recover from any denial of service incidents.

Description

A flaw was found in ghostscript. The fix for CVE-2020-16305 in ghostscript was not included in RHSA-2021:1852-06 advisory as it was claimed to be. This issue only affects the ghostscript package as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2023-4042 is the potential for denial of service on systems running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 with the vulnerable ghostscript package. This could disrupt services that rely on document processing or printing workflows, potentially affecting business continuity. While the vulnerability does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the availability impact could be significant in environments where uptime is critical, such as financial institutions, government agencies, and critical infrastructure operators. Organizations with automated document processing pipelines or print servers using ghostscript may experience service interruptions if exploited. The requirement for local access and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with multiple users or where attackers may have gained initial footholds. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation attempts.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 07:25 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats