CVE-2017-10738
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 · uneditedXnView Classic for Windows Version 2.40 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service via a crafted .rle file, related to a "Data Execution Prevention Violation starting at Unknown Symbol @ 0x000000002f32332f called from KERNELBASE!CompareStringW+0x0000000000000082."
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 confidenceXnView Classic 2.40 contains a vulnerability in its RLE (Run-Length Encoded) image file parser. When processing a specially crafted .rle file, a Data Execution Prevention (DEP) violation occurs in the CompareStringW function within KERNELBASE.dll, indicating a memory corruption issue during string handling in the image parsing routine. This can be exploited for arbitrary code execution or 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= 2.40CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 XnView Classic is installedLook for XnView Classic in the system program directory, or check the Windows registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\ for XnView.exe, or use the 'where xnview' command in Command PromptAffected if XnView Classic is installed on the system
-
Identify the installed XnView Classic versionRight-click on the XnView.exe file, select Properties, and check the Details tab for the File Version, or run 'xnview -version' from the command line if supportedAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.40
-
Verify RLE file type support is availableOpen XnView Classic, go to Options or Configuration, and check the list of supported image formats or file associations to confirm RLE (.rle) is listed as an enabled formatAffected if RLE file format support is enabled or available in XnView Classic
-
Check for recent RLE file accessUse Windows Event Viewer to search for file access events involving .rle files, or check the XnView thumbnail cache/database for entries referencing RLE files in user-accessible directoriesAffected if A user has opened or attempted to open an RLE file in XnView Classic version 2.40
A user is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and RLE file format support is enabled, allowing specially crafted RLE files to be processed and trigger the memory corruption in the CompareStringW function.
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 dataAvoid opening untrusted or unknown RLE files in XnView Classic until an official vendor patch is released. Consider using alternative image viewers or implementing file type restrictions as a compensating control.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $3,776.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10738 — 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-2017-10738 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