LibarchiveApplication · FreeBSD
CVE-2011-1777
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 buffer overflows in the (1) heap_add_entry and (2) relocate_dir functions in archive_read_support_format_iso9660.c in libarchive through 2.8.5 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted ISO9660 image.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerabilities in the heap_add_entry and relocate_dir functions in libarchive's ISO9660 image parser allow remote attackers to cause denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code via a crafted ISO9660 image. The vulnerabilities exist in archive_read_support_format_iso9660.c in versions through 2.8.5.
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
LibarchiveApplication
<= 2.8.5= 2.0= 2.1= 2.2= 2.2.3= 2.3= 2.4= 2.5= 2.6= 2.6.1= 2.6.2= 2.7.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed libarchive versionRun 'libarchive --version' or check your package manager for the libarchive package version (e.g., pkg info libarchive, dpkg -l libarchive, rpm -qi libarchive)Affected if The version is 2.8.5 or earlier, or matches any of: 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.7.0
-
Verify ISO9660 format support is loadedInspect your libarchive build or confirm the iso9660 parser module (archive_read_support_format_iso9660.c) is compiled into the library. Check for the presence of libarchive and its compiled format modules.Affected if The libarchive library with ISO9660 support is in use and the version is vulnerable as identified in step 1
-
Identify processes handling ISO9660 imagesReview running processes or services that use libarchive to extract or parse ISO images. Use commands like 'ps aux' or check application logs for references to ISO9660 or .iso file processing.Affected if Any application is actively processing ISO9660 images using a vulnerable libarchive version
You are affected if your system runs libarchive version 2.8.5 or earlier that includes ISO9660 format support and processes ISO images.
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 dataUpdate libarchive to a version beyond 2.8.5 that contains the security patches for these buffer overflows, or avoid processing untrusted ISO9660 images until the update is applied.
Fix this in Libarchive
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1777 — 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-2011-1777 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