CVE-2012-2836
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_data_load_data function in exif-data.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 confidencelibexif before 0.6.21 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the exif_data_load_data function in exif-data.c. When parsing crafted EXIF tags in image files, the function fails to properly validate memory bounds, allowing attackers to read beyond allocated buffer boundaries. This can cause denial of service via crash or potentially leak sensitive process memory contents to remote attackers.
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). On systems without pkg-config, 'exif --version' may work if the exif tool is installed.Affected if Version is 0.6.20 or lower, or specifically 0.6.14, 0.6.15, 0.6.16, 0.6.18, or 0.6.19
-
Locate libexif shared libraryRun 'ldconfig -p | grep exif' or check /usr/lib/libexif* and /usr/local/lib/libexif* to find the library file. Use 'strings' on the library and search for 'libexif' and a version string to confirm the build.Affected if The library file present on the system is version 0.6.20 or lower based on file metadata or embedded version strings
-
Identify applications using libexifRun 'ldd /path/to/image-viewer' or 'ldd /path/to/photo-application' to see if they link against libexif. Common tools: gwenview, digikam, feh, ImageMagick's identify, or any software that parses EXIF metadata from images.Affected if Applications that handle user-supplied images (especially from untrusted sources like the web or email) are linked against a vulnerable libexif version
You are affected if your system has libexif version 0.6.20 or lower installed and any application uses it to parse EXIF data from image files, particularly from untrusted or external 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.
From vendor dataUpgrade libexif to version 0.6.21 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement input validation to filter or reject suspicious EXIF data before passing images to libexif, and consider deploying compensating controls such as process isolation or memory hardening.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2836 — 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-2012-2836 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