CVE-2012-2088
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 signedness error in the TIFFReadDirectory function in tif_dirread.c in libtiff 3.9.4 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a negative tile depth in a tiff image, which triggers an improper conversion between signed and unsigned types, leading to a heap-based buffer overflow.
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 signedness error in libtiff's TIFFReadDirectory function allows a negative tile depth in a malicious TIFF image to trigger improper signed/unsigned type conversion, resulting in heap-based buffer overflow that can cause denial of service or potentially enable 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<= 3.9.4= 3.4= 3.5.1= 3.5.2= 3.5.3= 3.5.4= 3.5.5= 3.5.6= 3.5.7= 3.6.0= 3.6.1= 3.7.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 libtiff versionRun 'tiffinfo -version' or check the library file with 'strings libtiff.so | grep -i version' or use package manager commands like 'rpm -q libtiff' or 'dpkg -l libtiff'Affected if The version matches <= 3.9.4, or equals 3.4, 3.5.1-3.5.7, 3.6.0-3.6.1, or 3.7.0
-
Locate libtiff library filesFind libtiff shared libraries with 'find /usr -name "libtiff*" -type f' or 'ldconfig -p | grep tiff'Affected if Any libtiff library file present is from an affected version range
-
Identify applications using libtiffCheck for programs that process TIFF files by searching for linked libtiff with 'ldd <executable>' or checking for tiff-related tools like tiff2pdf, tiffinfo, tiffcpAffected if Applications that process untrusted TIFF images are present and linked to vulnerable libtiff versions
-
Verify TIFF processing capabilityCheck if any installed software (image viewers, converters, document processors) can load and process TIFF files, which would exercise the vulnerable TIFFReadDirectory code pathAffected if TIFF processing functionality exists and the underlying libtiff is vulnerable
You are affected if any installed libtiff library matches the affected version range (3.4, 3.5.1-3.5.7, 3.6.0-3.6.1, 3.7.0, or <= 3.9.4) and your system processes TIFF image files using that library.
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 libtiff to version 4.0 or later, or apply the vendor-supplied patch; scan infrastructure for vulnerable libtiff instances and validate any processed TIFF input.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2088 — 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-2012-2088 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