CVE-2014-7901
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 overflow in the opj_t2_read_packet_data function in fxcodec/fx_libopenjpeg/libopenjpeg20/t2.c in OpenJPEG in PDFium, as used in Google Chrome before 39.0.2171.65, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long segment in a JPEG 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 confidenceInteger overflow in the opj_t2_read_packet_data function in OpenJPEG (used by PDFium in Google Chrome) allows remote attackers to cause denial of service or possibly achieve unspecified impact via a specially crafted JPEG image with a long segment that triggers the overflow during packet data parsing.
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<= 39.0.2171.45CVSS 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.
-
Check Google Chrome versionNavigate to chrome://settings/help or use 'About Google Chrome' in the menu to view the installed version numberAffected if Version is 39.0.2171.45 or lower
-
Confirm PDFium module is in usePDFium is the PDF rendering engine in Chrome that uses OpenJPEG; no additional check needed as this is enabled by default when Chrome processes JPEG images in PDF documentsAffected if PDFium is processing any JPEG content (default behavior)
-
Identify if OpenJPEG is used by any embedded applicationFor non-Chrome environments using PDFium, inspect the application binaries or libraries for references to OpenJPEG (libopenjpeg) or the opj_t2_read_packet_data functionAffected if Application uses a version of OpenJPEG prior to the patched version with bounds checking in opj_t2_read_packet_data
User is affected if running Google Chrome version 39.0.2171.45 or lower and processing a specially crafted JPEG image through PDFium.
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 Google Chrome to version 39.0.2171.65 or later. For embedded PDFium implementations, update the OpenJPEG library to the patched version that includes bounds checking in the opj_t2_read_packet_data function.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,384.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-7901 — 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-2014-7901 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