CVE-2015-8572
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 · uneditedMultiple buffer overflows in Autodesk Design Review (ADR) before 2013 Hotfix 2 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted RLE data in a (1) BMP or (2) FLI file, (3) encoded scan lines in a PCX file, or (4) DataSubBlock or (5) GlobalColorTable in a GIF 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 confidenceAutodesk Design Review versions prior to 2013 Hotfix 2 contain multiple buffer overflow vulnerabilities in its image file parsing components. The flaws exist in the handling of RLE-compressed data in BMP and FLI files, encoded scan lines in PCX files, and DataSubBlock/GlobalColorTable structures in GIF files. Successful exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by tricking users into opening specially crafted image files.
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= 2013CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Confirm Autodesk Design Review installationCheck system for presence of Autodesk Design Review application. Look in installed programs list or search for the application executable.Affected if The software is installed on the system
-
Identify installed version numberLocate the Autodesk Design Review application and view its version information, typically found in the executable properties or About dialog.Affected if The installed version is 2013 (indicates potentially vulnerable release)
-
Check for Hotfix 2 appliedExamine the version or build information for any indication that Hotfix 2 has been applied. This may appear in the version string, product details, or installed updates list.Affected if The application shows version 2013 with no Hotfix 2 applied, meaning the buffer overflow vulnerabilities in BMP, FLI, PCX, and GIF parsing remain present
User is affected if Autodesk Design Review version 2013 is present without Hotfix 2 applied, as the image parsing buffer overflows in RLE-compressed BMP/FLI, encoded PCX scan lines, and GIF DataSubBlock/GlobalColorTable structures remain unpatched.
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 dataApply Autodesk Design Review 2013 Hotfix 2 to all affected installations. Until the patch can be deployed, exercise caution with untrusted BMP, FLI, PCX, and GIF files, or consider restricting the application's ability to open files from untrusted sources.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8572 — 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-2015-8572 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