CVE-2015-6825
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 ff_frame_thread_init function in libavcodec/pthread_frame.c in FFmpeg before 2.7.2 mishandles certain memory-allocation failures, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (invalid pointer access) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted file, as demonstrated by an AVI file.
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 confidenceThe ff_frame_thread_init function in libavcodec/pthread_frame.c in FFmpeg before 2.7.2 improperly handles memory-allocation failures, leading to invalid pointer access. When memory allocation fails during thread frame initialization, the function does not properly validate or handle the failure condition, allowing a crafted AVI file to trigger a denial of service through invalid pointer dereference or potentially achieve unspecified other impact.
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<= 2.7.1CVSS 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.
-
Determine FFmpeg versionRun 'ffmpeg -version' or 'ffmpeg -version 2>&1 | head -1' to see the installed version numberAffected if The version displayed is 2.7.1 or earlier (any version <= 2.7.1)
-
Verify libavcodec is presentRun 'ffmpeg -codecs 2>&1 | head -5' or check for libavcodec shared library (e.g., libavcodec.so.*) in the FFmpeg lib directoryAffected if libavcodec is present and the version check above shows <= 2.7.1
-
Confirm AVI demuxer is enabledRun 'ffmpeg -formats 2>&1 | grep -i avi' or 'ffmpeg -muxers 2>&1 | grep -i avi' to verify AVI format support is compiled inAffected if AVI demuxer is available and version is <= 2.7.1 (the vulnerability is triggered when processing AVI files)
-
Check if frame threading is in useInspect the ffmpeg build configuration with 'ffmpeg -v verbose 2>&1 | grep -i thread' or check if multiple frame threads were requested during processingAffected if Frame threading is enabled and the FFmpeg version is <= 2.7.1; the vulnerable function ff_frame_thread_init is called during threaded frame decoding
You are affected if you are running FFmpeg version 2.7.1 or earlier and processing AVI files with frame threading enabled, as the flawed memory-allocation failure handling in ff_frame_thread_init will be triggered.
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 FFmpeg to version 2.7.2 or later. Alternatively, implement proper error handling and validation for all memory allocation return values in ff_frame_thread_init to prevent use of invalid pointers after allocation failures.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-6825 — 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-2015-6825 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