CVE-2012-2813
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 · uneditedThe exif_convert_utf16_to_utf8 function in exif-entry.c in the EXIF Tag Parsing Library (aka libexif) before 0.6.21 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) or possibly obtain sensitive information from process memory via crafted EXIF tags in an 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 confidenceA buffer read overflow vulnerability exists in libexif's exif_convert_utf16_to_utf8 function in exif-entry.c. The function fails to properly validate buffer boundaries when processing EXIF tags, allowing an attacker to cause an out-of-bounds read via crafted UTF-16 EXIF metadata in an image file. This can lead to denial of service or potentially expose sensitive process memory.
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<= 0.6.20= 0.6.14= 0.6.15= 0.6.16= 0.6.18= 0.6.19CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/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 libexif versionRun 'pkg-config --modversion libexif' or check your package manager (dpkg -l libexif, rpm -q libexif, etc.)Affected if Version is 0.6.14, 0.6.15, 0.6.16, 0.6.18, 0.6.19, or any version <= 0.6.20
-
Verify exif-entry.c source file versionIf libexif is built from source, check the version tag in the source tree or the exif-entry.c file headerAffected if Source corresponds to an affected version listed above
-
Identify applications using libexifRun 'ldd <application>' on image viewers/editors (e.g., eog, gimp, digikam) or check which packages depend on libexifAffected if Any application that processes EXIF metadata is using a vulnerable libexif library
-
Confirm UTF-16 EXIF processing occursInspect application behavior or logs when opening images containing UTF-16 encoded EXIF tags (e.g., Unicode camera model, GPS, or user comment fields)Affected if Images with UTF-16 EXIF data are processed by the vulnerable library version
You are affected if libexif version 0.6.20 or earlier (specifically 0.6.14, 0.6.15, 0.6.16, 0.6.18, or 0.6.19) is installed and used to process images with UTF-16 encoded 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.
From vendor dataUpdate libexif to version 0.6.21 or later, which contains the fix for the out-of-bounds read vulnerability in exif_convert_utf16_to_utf8. Alternatively, apply the vendor-supplied patch to address the boundary validation issue.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2813 — 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-2012-2813 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