Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 1.16% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2021
CVE-2021-29475High confidence
PDF export allows arbitrary file reads
hedgedoc · hedgedoc
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-PXXG-PX9V-6QF3 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
10.0CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 72 hours
Patch availableCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs hedgedoc hedgedoc and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Patch available01
What, why and how
HedgeDoc (formerly known as CodiMD) is an open-source collaborative markdown editor. An attacker is able to receive arbitrary files from the file system when exporting a note to PDF. Since the code injection has to take place as note content, there fore this exploit requires the attackers ability to modify a note. This will affect all instances, which have pdf export enabled. This issue has been fixed by https://github.com/hedgedoc/hedgedoc/commit/c1789474020a6d668d616464cb2da5e90e123f65 and is available in version 1.5.0. Starting the CodiMD/HedgeDoc instance with `CMD_ALLOW_PDF_EXPORT=false` or set `"allowPDFExport": false` in config.json can mitigate this issue for those who cannot upgrade. This exploit works because while PhantomJS doesn't actually render the `file:///` references to the PDF file itself, it still uses them internally, and exfiltration is possible, and easy through JavaScript rendering. The impact is pretty bad, as the attacker is able to read the CodiMD/HedgeDoc `config.json` file as well any other files on the filesystem. Even though the suggested Docker deploy option doesn't have many interesting files itself, the `config.json` still often contains sensitive information, database credentials, and maybe OAuth secrets among other things.
What
HedgeDoc (formerly known as CodiMD) is an open-source collaborative markdown editor. An attacker is able to receive arbitrary files from the file system when exporting a note to PDF. Since the code injection has to take place as note content, there fore this exploit requires the attackers ability to modify a note. This will affect all instances, which have pdf export enabled. This issue has been fixed by https://github.com/hedgedoc/hedgedoc/commit/c1789474020a6d668d616464cb2da5e90e123f65 and is available in version 1.5.0. Starting the CodiMD/HedgeDoc instance with `CMD_ALLOW_PDF_EXPORT=false` or set `"allowPDFExport": false` in config.json can mitigate this issue for those who cannot upgrade. This exploit works because while PhantomJS doesn't actually render the `file:///` references to the PDF file itself, it still uses them internally, and exfiltration is possible, and easy through JavaScript rendering. The impact is pretty bad, as the attacker is able to read the CodiMD/HedgeDoc `config.json` file as well any other files on the filesystem. Even though the suggested Docker deploy option doesn't have many interesting files itself, the `config.json` still often contains sensitive information, database credentials, and maybe OAuth secrets among other things.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
What
HedgeDoc (formerly known as CodiMD) is an open-source collaborative markdown editor. An attacker is able to receive arbitrary files from the file system when exporting a note to PDF. Since the code injection has to take place as note content, there fore this exploit requires the attackers ability to modify a note. This will affect all instances, which have pdf export enabled. This issue has been fixed by https://github.com/hedgedoc/hedgedoc/commit/c1789474020a6d668d616464cb2da5e90e123f65 and is available in version 1.5.0. Starting the CodiMD/HedgeDoc instance with `CMD_ALLOW_PDF_EXPORT=false` or set `"allowPDFExport": false` in config.json can mitigate this issue for those who cannot upgrade. This exploit works because while PhantomJS doesn't actually render the `file:///` references to the PDF file itself, it still uses them internally, and exfiltration is possible, and easy through JavaScript rendering. The impact is pretty bad, as the attacker is able to read the CodiMD/HedgeDoc `config.json` file as well any other files on the filesystem. Even though the suggested Docker deploy option doesn't have many interesting files itself, the `config.json` still often contains sensitive information, database credentials, and maybe OAuth secrets among other things.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → obtain information outside the intended access boundary
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-94 ↗
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- hedgedoc: < 1.5.0
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 26 Apr 2021 · Last source change 3 Aug 2024, 22:11 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2021-16083
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.