CVE-2017-10739
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 @ 0x000000000c1b541c called from xnview+0x00000000003826ec."
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 confidenceXnView Classic Version 2.40 contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing specially crafted RLE (Run-Length Encoded) image files. The vulnerability triggers a Data Execution Prevention (DEP) violation, indicating a buffer overflow or out-of-bounds memory write during RLE parsing that can be leveraged for arbitrary code execution or cause application 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.
-
Verify XnView Classic is installedCheck for XnView Classic installation: Look for 'XnView' in Program Files (Windows) or /Applications (macOS), or run 'where xnview' (Windows) / 'which xnview' (Linux)Affected if XnView Classic executable is found on the system
-
Confirm installed version is 2.40Run XnView Classic, go to Help > About, or right-click the executable and select Properties > Details to view the version numberAffected if Version displayed is exactly 2.40
-
Check RLE file associationInspect file associations: On Windows, check HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.rle or Right-click any .rle file > Open With > Choose default program. On Linux, check /usr/share/mime/packages for RLE mime typesAffected if XnView Classic is set as the default handler for .rle files
-
Locate RLE files on the systemSearch for .rle files: Run 'dir /s /b *.rle' (Windows) or 'find / -name "*.rle" 2>/dev/null' (Linux) in user-accessible directories like Downloads, Desktop, DocumentsAffected if Any .rle files exist that could be opened by XnView
User is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and configured to open .rle files, as the vulnerability triggers when parsing specially crafted RLE images.
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 dataDo not open untrusted .rle files in XnView Classic. Update to a patched version of XnView if available, or replace with an actively maintained image viewer that provides security updates.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10739 — 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-2017-10739 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