VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2024Updated 7 Nov 2024

CVE-2024-33870: Artifex Ghostscript · Path Traversal

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium · fixed in 10.03.1 : update Artifex Ghostscript when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Artifex Ghostscript before 10.03.1
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.03.1

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jul 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-33870, organizations should upgrade Ghostscript to version 10.03.1 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until patching is possible, restrict the directories that Ghostscript can access by configuring permitted paths carefully and avoiding including the current directory (./) in these paths. Implement strict file system permissions to limit Ghostscript's access to sensitive files and directories. Employ input validation and filtering to prevent processing of untrusted or malicious PostScript documents, especially in automated workflows or public-facing services. Consider sandboxing or containerizing Ghostscript processes to isolate potential exploitation impacts. Monitor logs for unusual file access patterns indicative of path traversal attempts. Additionally, review and harden any integration points where Ghostscript is invoked, ensuring minimal privileges and adherence to the principle of least privilege. Regularly audit and update Ghostscript deployments as part of vulnerability management processes.

Description

An 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.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-33870 is unauthorized access to arbitrary files on systems running vulnerable versions of Ghostscript. This can lead to confidentiality breaches if sensitive files are exposed, such as configuration files, credentials, or private data. Integrity could be compromised if attackers leverage the vulnerability to overwrite or manipulate files, although this depends on the deployment context and file system permissions. Availability impacts are possible if critical files are deleted or corrupted, potentially disrupting document processing workflows or dependent services. Since Ghostscript is embedded in many print servers, document management systems, and software development tools, exploitation could affect a broad range of organizations globally. The vulnerability is particularly concerning in environments where Ghostscript processes documents from untrusted or external sources, such as public-facing web applications or automated document pipelines. The lack of required privileges and user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing risk. However, the impact scope is somewhat limited by the need for the current directory to be in permitted paths, which may reduce exposure in some configurations.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 04:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats