CVE-2017-10753
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!LdrpFindLoadedDllByMapping+0x0000000000000046."
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 contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing crafted .rle (Run-Length Encoded) image files. The vulnerability occurs in the RLE parsing logic where data from the faulting address influences branch selection, indicating a write-what-where condition that allows attackers to control memory writes and potentially achieve arbitrary code execution or cause 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 installationCheck if XnView is installed by looking for the executable. On Windows, common paths include C:\Program Files\XnView\xnview.exe or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView\xnview.exe. On Linux, check /usr/bin/xnview or ~/.local/share/xnview/Affected if XnView Classic is installed on the system
-
Determine installed XnView versionRight-click xnview.exe, select Properties, and check the Version tab. Alternatively, launch XnView and go to Help > About to view the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.40
-
Check for .rle file associationLook for .rle file type associations in the system. On Windows, search for any .rle files in user directories or check file type associations in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.rleAffected if The system has .rle files associated with XnView or .rle files are present on the system that could be opened with XnView
-
Inspect automatic preview settingsIn XnView, check Options > General > Preview settings to see if automatic thumbnail or image preview is enabled for image files including .rleAffected if Automatic preview or thumbnail generation is enabled and could trigger parsing without explicit user action
A user is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and the system handles .rle files, either through direct opening or automatic preview functionality.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of XnView Classic, or restrict usage of XnView to trusted files and disable automatic file previewing for untrusted sources.
- 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-2017-10753 — 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-2017-10753 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