Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.16% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-19547High confidence
Local Privilege Escalation in Ghostscript for Windows
Artifex Software Inc. · Ghostscript
7.0HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 29 Sep 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Artifex Software Inc. Ghostscript 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.
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | ghostscript | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | ghostscript | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | ghostscript | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | ghostscript | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | ghostscript | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 4 Oct 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
2 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-19547 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 2 · interimSUSE Product Security TeamCVE-2026-19547
The vendor explicitly states that these products are not affected by this CVE.
- ghostscript as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP7
- ghostscript-devel as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP7
- ghostscript-x11 as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP7
- ghostscript as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 12 SP5
- ghostscript-devel as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 12 SP5
- ghostscript-x11 as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 12 SP5
- ghostscript as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP1
- ghostscript-devel as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP1
- ghostscript-x11 as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP1
- ghostscript as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP2
- ghostscript-devel as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP2
- ghostscript-x11 as component of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP2
- Summary
- Ghostscript for Windows is vulnerable to local privilege escalation through PostScript resource file hijacking. Due to the application searching for PostScript resource files in predictable paths under C:\\gs\\ that do not exist by default on Windows installations, combined with Windows default ACLs allowing any authenticated user to create directories at the root of C:\\, an attacker who is an authenticated local user can create the expected directory structure and plant a malicious PostScript file. When any user or service subsequently runs Ghostscript, the planted file is automatically loaded and executed with the full privileges of the Ghostscript process. This results in full compromise of Ghostscript process context, as well as running arbitrary code on the machine with Ghostscript process privileges. This issue was fixed in version 10.08.0.
- Remediation
- No remediation text is recorded.
CVE-2026-19547 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityghostscript: ghostscript: Local privilege escalation via predictable resource search path
The vendor explicitly states that these products are not affected by this CVE.
- ghostscript as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript-doc as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript-tools-dvipdf as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript-tools-fonts as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript-tools-printing as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript.src as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- libgs as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- libgs-devel as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- ghostscript as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
- ghostscript-devel as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
- ghostscript-doc as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
- ghostscript-gtk as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Ghostscript. In Windows environments, the application searches for PostScript resource files in predictable directory paths that do not exist by default. An authenticated local user can exploit this issue by creating the required directory structure and planting a malicious PostScript file. When another user or system service runs Ghostscript, the file is automatically loaded and executed, leading to arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation with the permissions of the executing process.
- Remediation
- No remediation text is recorded.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Ghostscript for Windows is vulnerable to local privilege escalation through PostScript resource file hijacking. Due to the application searching for PostScript resource files in predictable paths under C:\\gs\\ that do not exist by default on Windows installations, combined with Windows default ACLs allowing any authenticated user to create directories at the root of C:\\, an attacker who is an authenticated local user can create the expected directory structure and plant a malicious PostScript file. When any user or service subsequently runs Ghostscript, the planted file is automatically loaded and executed with the full privileges of the Ghostscript process. This results in full compromise of Ghostscript process context, as well as running arbitrary code on the machine with Ghostscript process privileges. This issue was fixed in version 10.08.0.
What
Ghostscript for Windows is vulnerable to local privilege escalation through PostScript resource file hijacking. Due to the application searching for PostScript resource files in predictable paths under C:\\gs\\ that do not exist by default on Windows installations, combined with Windows default ACLs allowing any authenticated user to create directories at the root of C:\\, an attacker who is an authenticated local user can create the expected directory structure and plant a malicious PostScript file. When any user or service subsequently runs Ghostscript, the planted file is automatically loaded and executed with the full privileges of the Ghostscript process. This results in full compromise of Ghostscript process context, as well as running arbitrary code on the machine with Ghostscript process privileges. This issue was fixed in version 10.08.0.
Why
The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
Ghostscript for Windows is vulnerable to local privilege escalation through PostScript resource file hijacking. Due to the application searching for PostScript resource files in predictable paths under C:\\gs\\ that do not exist by default on Windows installations, combined with Windows default ACLs allowing any authenticated user to create directories at the root of C:\\, an attacker who is an authenticated local user can create the expected directory structure and plant a malicious PostScript file. When any user or service subsequently runs Ghostscript, the planted file is automatically loaded and executed with the full privileges of the Ghostscript process. This results in full compromise of Ghostscript process context, as well as running arbitrary code on the machine with Ghostscript process privileges. This issue was fixed in version 10.08.0.
Why
The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
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
- local access → Untrusted Search Path → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-426 ↗
CWE-426: Untrusted Search Path. The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCLowSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
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
- ghostscript: 0 < 10.08.0
- Fixed
- 10.08.0.
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 29 Sept 2026 · Last source change 29 Sept 2026, 10:52 UTC · CWE-426 · Untrusted Search Path
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-30
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-88701
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD awaiting enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-88701 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-88701"}
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added remediation: cert.pl/CVE-2026-19547; removed remediation: bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709522.CNA ↗
- Before
- remediation: bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709522
- After
- remediation: cert.pl/CVE-2026-19547
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.