CVE-2024-47076VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-47076: OpenPrinting libcupsfilters · Improper Input Validation

Affects OpenPrinting libcupsfiltersSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public exploit available (Metasploit) · 79% EPSS · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 79.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 99% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Sep 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
1 Metasploit module
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

Organizations should prioritize upgrading libcupsfilters to versions later than 2.1b1 once official patches are released by the OpenPrinting project. Until patches are available, network administrators should restrict access to IPP servers by implementing strict network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted hosts only. Monitoring and logging IPP traffic for anomalous or unexpected attribute values can help detect exploitation attempts. Employing application-layer filtering or proxying for IPP communications may reduce risk by sanitizing inputs before they reach vulnerable components. Additionally, organizations should review and harden printer configurations and access controls to minimize the impact of potential manipulation. Regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focused on printing infrastructure can identify exposure. Finally, raising awareness among IT and security teams about this vulnerability will ensure timely response and patch management.

Description

CUPS is a standards-based, open-source printing system, and `libcupsfilters` contains the code of the filters of the former `cups-filters` package as library functions to be used for the data format conversion tasks needed in Printer Applications. The `cfGetPrinterAttributes5` function in `libcupsfilters` does not sanitize IPP attributes returned from an IPP server. When these IPP attributes are used, for instance, to generate a PPD file, this can lead to attacker controlled data to be provided to the rest of the CUPS system.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of printing infrastructure, which is often integrated into broader IT and operational technology environments. Attackers exploiting this flaw could manipulate printer configurations, potentially causing denial of service through misconfiguration or enabling further lateral movement within networks by corrupting trusted printing workflows. Critical sectors such as government, finance, healthcare, and manufacturing that rely on secure and reliable printing services could experience operational disruptions or data integrity issues. Since the vulnerability requires no authentication and can be exploited remotely over the network, it increases the attack surface, especially in environments where IPP servers are exposed or insufficiently segmented. The lack of user interaction further simplifies exploitation. Given the widespread use of CUPS in Linux-based systems, including many enterprise and public sector deployments across Europe, the potential impact is broad. Additionally, compromised printing systems could be used as a foothold for more sophisticated attacks targeting sensitive data or critical infrastructure.

Summary

CVE-2024-47076 is a vulnerability classified under CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) affecting the libcupsfilters library, part of the OpenPrinting CUPS system widely used for managing print jobs and printer configurations. The vulnerability exists in the cfGetPrinterAttributes5 function, which retrieves IPP (Internet Printing Protocol) attributes from an IPP server but does not properly sanitize these attributes before using them. Since these attributes can be attacker-controlled, maliciously crafted IPP responses can inject harmful data into the CUPS system, particularly when generating PPD (PostScript Printer Description) files. This can lead to a compromise of the integrity of the printing system, allowing attackers to manipulate printer configurations or potentially execute further attacks within the printing environment. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.6, reflecting its high severity, with an attack vector of network (AV:N), low attack complexity (AC:L), no privileges required (PR:N), and no user interaction (UI:N). The scope is changed (S:C), indicating that the vulnerability affects components beyond the initially vulnerable one. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild, but the impact potential is significant. The affected versions are libcupsfilters up to 2.1b1, and no official patches have been linked yet. The vulnerability highlights the risks of insufficient input validation in network-facing services, especially in critical infrastructure components like printing systems that are often overlooked in security hardening.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
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 · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 3 Nov 2025, 22:47 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Metasploit module

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats