Report · GCVE DatabaseAbout CVE-2024-29510Published 3 Sep 2024Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for ghostscript

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2024-29510· Medium 6.3

Not known to be exploited · public exploit available (Metasploit) · 27% EPSS · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 9.4.0 as a priority.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 27.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 98% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.4.0

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jul 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

Upgrade redhat/ghostscript to 9.4.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hatredhat/ghostscript`pkg:rpm/redhat/ghostscript`Other threats	Affected <9.4.0 >=9.4.0 <=9.8.0	Fixed in 9.4.0

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

AI-suggested

A security update is available from Red Hat for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and related variants that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the provided updates as described in the Red Hat advisory RHSA-2024:6197 and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official patch.

Description

Multiple security vulnerabilities have been identified in the Ghostscript suite used for rendering PostScript and PDF documents. These include a format string injection vulnerability that can lead to shell command execution bypassing SAFER restrictions (CVE-2024-29510), and two path traversal vulnerabilities that can lead to command execution or arbitrary file access (CVE-2024-33869 and CVE-2024-33870). Red Hat has issued a security advisory with updates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and related variants to address these issues. The update is rated as having a moderate security impact. Users of affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 versions are advised to apply the provided updates to mitigate these vulnerabilities.

Impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2024-29510 could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands bypassing SAFER restrictions. Exploitation of CVE-2024-33869 and CVE-2024-33870 could lead to command execution or unauthorized access to arbitrary files via path traversal. These vulnerabilities affect the security of systems running vulnerable versions of Ghostscript, potentially compromising system integrity and confidentiality. The overall impact is rated as moderate by Red Hat.

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).
CWE-23Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that 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.
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).
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (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 11 Oct 2026, 22:31 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Metasploit module

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-23

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats