CVE-2012-2841
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 underflow in the exif_entry_get_value function in exif-entry.c in the EXIF Tag Parsing Library (aka libexif) 0.6.20 might allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors involving a crafted buffer-size parameter during the formatting of an EXIF tag, 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 underflow in libexif 0.6.20's exif_entry_get_value function allows remote attackers to trigger a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted buffer-size parameter when formatting EXIF image tags, potentially enabling 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= 0.6.20CVSS 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 libexif versionRun 'pkg-config --modversion libexif' or check your package manager (dpkg -l | grep libexif, rpm -q libexif, etc.)Affected if Version returned is exactly 0.6.20
-
Locate libexif library fileRun 'find /usr -name "libexif*" -type f' and check the file version with 'file' or 'strings' if pkg-config unavailableAffected if Library file shows version 0.6.20
-
Identify applications using libexifRun 'ldd <application> | grep exif' or 'ldconfig -p | grep exif' to find linked applications that process EXIF dataAffected if Any application linked to libexif 0.6.20 is in use
-
Check for EXIF processing codeInspect source code of any custom application using libexif: search for calls to 'exif_entry_get_value' functionAffected if Code calls exif_entry_get_value with user-controlled EXIF buffer-size parameters
You are affected if libexif version 0.6.20 is installed and any application uses the exif_entry_get_value function to process EXIF data.
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 the latest version (0.6.21 or later) which contains the fix for this integer underflow. If updating is not possible, implement input validation on EXIF buffer-size parameters before passing them to exif_entry_get_value.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2841 — 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-2012-2841 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