CVE-2017-10752
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 might allow attackers to cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted .rle file, related to "Data from Faulting Address controls Branch Selection starting at ntdll_77df0000!RtlpLowFragHeapFree+0x000000000000001f."
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 2.40 for Windows contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing crafted .rle (Run-Length Encoded) image files. The vulnerability triggers during heap operations (RtlpLowFragHeapFree), indicating a heap-based buffer overflow that can be triggered by malicious RLE file content, potentially leading to denial of service or arbitrary code execution.
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.
-
Confirm XnView Classic is installedCheck for XnView Classic installation by looking for the executable. Common paths: C:\Program Files\XnView\xnview.exe or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView\xnview.exe. Use PowerShell: Get-ChildItem -Path 'C:\Program Files','C:\Program Files (x86)' -Recurse -Filter 'xnview.exe' -ErrorAction SilentlyContinueAffected if XnView Classic executable is found on the system
-
Identify the installed versionRight-click on xnview.exe, select Properties, then look at the Details tab for the File Version. Alternatively, run: xnview.exe /? or check in the application's About dialogAffected if The version number is exactly 2.40
-
Check for .rle file association or recent .rle file handlingLook for .rle file associations in the Windows Registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.rle. Also check recent file history or temp folders for .rle files opened by XnView. Use: Get-ItemProperty 'HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Classes\.rle' 2>$nullAffected if XnView is configured to handle or has recently processed .rle files
-
Verify XnView is used in an environment where untrusted files can be openedReview if XnView has access to network shares, email attachments, or downloads folder where users may open untrusted .rle files. Check file opening behavior and default application settingsAffected if Users can open untrusted or externally sourced .rle files directly in XnView
If XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed AND the application can open or process .rle files from untrusted sources, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 dataSince this is a vulnerability in XnView Classic itself, remediation requires either applying the vendor patch when available or implementing compensating controls such as application whitelisting, sandboxing the application, or blocking/sandboxing untrusted .rle file attachments before they reach the affected application.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10752 — 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-2017-10752 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