CVE-2017-10750
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 "User Mode Write AV near NULL starting at ntdll_77df0000!RtlEnterCriticalSection+0x0000000000000012."
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 Version 2.40 contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing crafted .rle (Run-Length Encoded) image files. The vulnerability triggers a User Mode Write Access Violation near NULL in ntdll during RtlEnterCriticalSection, which can be leveraged for arbitrary code execution or causes 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 directory (commonly C:\Program Files\XnView or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView) and locate xnview.exeAffected if XnView Classic executable exists on the system
-
Determine installed XnView versionRight-click xnview.exe, select Properties, then look at the Version tab to find the File VersionAffected if File version shows exactly 2.40
-
Confirm .rle file support is presentCheck if XnView can open .rle files by looking for RLE in supported formats or attempting to open a test .rle fileAffected if XnView has .rle file parsing capability available
-
Identify .rle files in the environmentSearch for files with .rle extension on the system using file explorer or command: dir /s /b *.rleAffected if Untrusted or crafted .rle files are present and can be opened by XnView
You are affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and can open or parse .rle image files.
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 unverified .rle files in XnView Classic. If available, apply vendor patches or update to a newer version of XnView that addresses this vulnerability.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10750 — 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-2017-10750 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