CVE-2016-10255
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 __libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock function in elf_getdata.c in elfutils before 0.168 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted (1) sh_off or (2) sh_size ELF header value, which triggers a memory allocation failure.
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 __libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock function in elfutils library (versions before 0.168) fails to properly validate ELF header values (sh_off and sh_size) before attempting memory allocation. Crafted malicious ELF files with oversized or malformed section header offset/size values cause the memory allocation to fail, resulting in a crash and denial of service.
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<= 0.167CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 elfutils versionRun 'rpm -qa elfutils' (RHEL/CentOS), 'dpkg -l libelf1' (Debian/Ubuntu), or check the library file directly with 'eu-readelf --version' or 'elfutils-config --version'Affected if Version is 0.167 or earlier (the library file may also be named libelf.so.1 or libelf-*.so)
-
Locate elfutils library filesFind library files with 'find /usr -name "libelf*" -type f 2>/dev/null' or check /usr/lib*/libelf.so*Affected if The library file exists and is from elfutils version <= 0.167
-
Identify processes or tools using libelfRun 'ldd <binary>' on ELF parsing tools (e.g., readelf, eu-readelf, gdb, rpm, dpkg) or use 'lsof | grep libelf' to see which running processes have the library loadedAffected if Any tool that processes ELF files is linked against the vulnerable libelf library
-
Determine if untrusted ELF files are processedReview whether the environment handles ELF files from untrusted sources (e.g., uploaded binaries, package repositories, container images, debug files from external users)Affected if Untrusted or externally-sourced ELF files are parsed by elfutils-linked tools
-
Verify the vulnerable code path is reachableConfirm usage of elf_getdata, elf_getshdr, or related libelf functions that internally call __libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock when opening ELF filesAffected if The code path that reads section header data (sh_off/sh_size) is exercised when parsing ELF files
You are affected if elfutils version is 0.167 or earlier AND your environment processes untrusted ELF files using libelf functions that trigger the __libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock code path.
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 elfutils to version 0.168 or later which includes proper validation of ELF header values. Alternatively, ensure untrusted ELF files are validated or rejected before processing with elfutils.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10255 — 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-2016-10255 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