CVE-2007-6354
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in exiftags before 1.01 has unknown impact and attack vectors, resulting from a "field offset overflow" that triggers an "illegal memory access," a different vulnerability than CVE-2007-6355.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceexiftags before 1.01 contains a field offset overflow vulnerability that triggers illegal memory access. This is a heap or stack-based buffer overflow where malformed EXIF metadata field offsets cause the program to read/write to invalid memory locations, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.00= 0.80= 0.90= 0.91= 0.92= 0.93= 0.94= 0.95= 0.96= 0.97= 0.98= 0.99CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify exiftags is installedRun 'which exiftags' or 'exiftags -V' to locate the executableAffected if exiftags is not found, then not applicable; if found, proceed to version check
-
Determine installed exiftags versionRun 'exiftags -V' or 'exiftags -v' to display version informationAffected if version output cannot be obtained or shows an unknown version
-
Compare version against affected rangeCheck if the installed version is 1.00 or earlier, or matches any of: 0.80, 0.90, 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.94, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99Affected if installed version is 1.00 or any version from 0.80 through 0.99
-
Assess exposure to untrusted EXIF imagesDetermine whether exiftags processes EXIF data from untrusted or user-supplied image filesAffected if vulnerable version is installed AND exiftags is used to process images from untrusted sources
User is affected if exiftags version 1.00 or earlier (including 0.80-0.99) is installed and is used to process untrusted image files containing EXIF metadata.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedUpdate exiftags to version 1.01 or later. If upgrading is not possible, restrict access to untrusted image files and run exiftags in an isolated sandbox environment.
exiftags 1.01
- Obtain exiftags version 1.01 from the official source
- Compile and install exiftags 1.01 following standard build procedures (./configure, make, make install)
- Verify the installed version matches 1.01 using 'exiftags -v' or similar version check command
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6354 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-6354 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data