CVE-2016-10721
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 · uneditedpartclone.restore in Partclone 0.2.87 is prone to a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability due to insufficient validation of the partclone image header. An attacker may be able to execute arbitrary code in the context of the user running the affected application.
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 · moderate confidencepartclone.restore in Partclone 0.2.87 contains a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability caused by insufficient validation of the partclone image header. When processing a maliciously crafted image, the application fails to properly validate header fields before copying data into fixed-size heap buffers, allowing an attacker to overwrite adjacent memory and execute arbitrary code.
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= 0.2.87CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Check if Partclone is installedRun `partclone --version` or check your package manager for installed partclone packagesAffected if Partclone is installed and the version is exactly 0.2.87
-
Identify partclone.restore binaryLocate the partclone.restore binary on the system using `which partclone.restore` or by listing files in the partclone installation directoryAffected if The partclone.restore binary exists on the system and is executable
-
Verify the specific version of partcloneRun `partclone.restore --version` or check the output of `partclone --version` to confirm it reports version 0.2.87 exactlyAffected if The reported version is 0.2.87 (note: other versions are not affected by this specific CVE)
You are affected only if partclone version 0.2.87 is installed AND partclone.restore is used to process image files (the vulnerability triggers when restoring from a maliciously crafted image).
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 Partclone to the latest patched version. If no update is available, validate all partclone images through cryptographic signatures or checksums before restoration, and run partclone.restore with minimal privileges to limit exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10721 — 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-2016-10721 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