CVE-2010-1513
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 · uneditedMultiple integer overflows in src/image.c in Ziproxy before 3.0.1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via (1) a large JPG image, related to the jpg2bitmap function or (2) a large PNG image, related to the png2bitmap function, leading to heap-based buffer overflows.
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 · high confidenceInteger overflows in Ziproxy's image.c (jpg2bitmap and png2bitmap functions) allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted large JPG/PNG images, causing heap-based buffer overflows due to insufficient bounds checking when calculating bitmap dimensions.
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<= 3.0.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3= 1.4.0= 1.5.0= 1.5.1= 1.5.2= 1.9.0= 2.0.0= 2.1.0= 2.1.1CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Ziproxy is installedCheck for the Ziproxy binary or service: run 'which ziproxy' or look for /usr/sbin/ziproxy, /etc/ziproxy.conf, or check running processes with 'ps aux | grep ziproxy'Affected if Ziproxy is not installed on the system
-
Determine installed Ziproxy versionRun 'ziproxy -v' or 'ziproxy -V' to display version information, or check the package manager (dpkg -l ziproxy, rpm -qi ziproxy)Affected if The version is <= 3.0.0 or exactly matches any of these: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.9.0, 2.0.0, 2.1.0, 2.1.1
-
Confirm image transcoding is enabledInspect the Ziproxy configuration file (typically /etc/ziproxy.conf) for EnableConverters, Converters, or image-related directives that enable JPG/PNG transcodingAffected if Image conversion features for JPG or PNG are enabled in the configuration (the vulnerable jpg2bitmap and png2bitmap functions would be in use)
The system is affected if Ziproxy is installed with a version matching the affected ranges AND image transcoding (JPG/PNG conversion) is enabled, as the integer overflow flaw resides specifically in those conversion functions.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade to Ziproxy 3.0.1 or later which contains bounds checking fixes; if upgrade is not immediately feasible, consider disabling or restricting the image transcoding features to reduce attack surface.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1513 — 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-2010-1513 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