VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-47175: OpenPrinting libppd · Improper Input Validation

Affects OpenPrinting libppdSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-47176

Not known to be exploited · public exploit available (Metasploit) · 63% EPSS · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 63.6% 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 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 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

1. Monitor OpenPrinting and CUPS project channels for official patches addressing CVE-2024-47175 and apply updates promptly once available. 2. Until patches are released, restrict network access to CUPS services by implementing firewall rules limiting connections to trusted hosts and networks only. 3. Disable legacy PPD support or the libppd component if not strictly necessary, reducing the attack surface. 4. Employ network segmentation to isolate printing infrastructure from critical systems and sensitive data environments. 5. Enable detailed logging and monitor print job submissions and IPP attribute requests for anomalous or unexpected patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Conduct internal vulnerability scans and penetration tests focusing on printing services to identify exposure. 7. Educate IT staff about this vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include scenarios involving printing system compromise. 8. Consider deploying application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection systems capable of inspecting IPP traffic for malicious payloads. 9. Review and harden printer configurations, removing unnecessary services and disabling remote administration features where possible.

Description

CUPS is a standards-based, open-source printing system, and `libppd` can be used for legacy PPD file support. The `libppd` function `ppdCreatePPDFromIPP2` does not sanitize IPP attributes when creating the PPD buffer. When used in combination with other functions such as `cfGetPrinterAttributes5`, can result in user controlled input and ultimately code execution via Foomatic. This vulnerability can be part of an exploit chain leading to remote code execution (RCE), as described in CVE-2024-47176.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-47175 can be substantial, especially in environments where CUPS is deployed extensively for network printing services, including enterprises, government agencies, and educational institutions. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code remotely, potentially leading to system compromise, lateral movement within networks, and data integrity breaches. Since printing services often run with elevated privileges or have access to sensitive documents, the integrity impact is high. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality directly but can be leveraged as a foothold for further attacks. Disruption of printing services could also affect business continuity. Given the network attack vector and no requirement for authentication, attackers can exploit exposed printing services remotely, increasing the risk for organizations with poorly segmented or exposed network printing infrastructure. The absence of user interaction requirements further elevates the threat level. Organizations relying on legacy PPD support are particularly vulnerable, as this functionality is directly implicated.

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