CVE-2007-6355
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 · uneditedInteger overflow 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-2007-6354.
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 confidenceInteger overflow in exiftags before version 1.01 stems from a field offset calculation error during EXIF metadata parsing. This flaw triggers illegal memory access, potentially allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service via specially crafted image files.
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 installationCheck if the exiftags binary exists on the system by searching common binary locations or using 'which exiftags' or 'where exiftags' commandsAffected if exiftags is found installed on the system
-
Determine installed exiftags versionRun exiftags with version flags such as 'exiftags -v', 'exiftags --version', or check package manager listings if installed via packageAffected if The reported version is 1.00 or any version listed in the affected range (0.80 through 1.00)
-
Identify exiftags usage contextInspect how exiftags is invoked: check cron jobs, scripts, web applications, or services that call exiftags to process image filesAffected if exiftags is used to process image files from untrusted or external sources
-
Review exposed interfacesSearch for web applications, APIs, or network services that incorporate exiftags functionality for EXIF metadata extractionAffected if exiftags is integrated into publicly accessible interfaces or processes user-uploaded images
A user is affected if exiftags is installed and the version is 1.00 or any of the listed affected versions (0.80-0.99), and the tool processes image files, especially from untrusted sources.
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 · scopedUpgrade exiftags to version 1.01 or later to remediate the integer overflow vulnerability. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict processing to trusted image sources and disable or limit exiftags functionality in exposed interfaces.
exiftags 1.01
- Obtain exiftags version 1.01 or later from the official project distribution point
- Verify the integrity of the downloaded package using available checksums or signatures
- Compile and install the new version according to the project's build instructions
- Verify the installed version is 1.01 or later by running 'exiftags -v' or equivalent
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6355 — 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-2007-6355 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