CVE-2017-10767
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 KERNELBASE!StateObjectListFind+0x0000000000000005."
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 fails to properly handle crafted .rle (Run-Length Encoded) image files, leading to memory corruption where attacker-controlled data influences branch selection. This results in denial of service and potentially arbitrary code execution due to the ability to manipulate control flow at KERNELBASE!StateObjectListFind.
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 installation and versionCheck for XnView Classic in the installed programs list (Windows: Control Panel > Programs and Features, or check C:\Program Files\XnView or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView for xnview.exe). Right-click xnview.exe, select Properties, and check the File Version on the Details tab.Affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed
-
Confirm .rle file type associationCheck if .rle files are associated with XnView Classic. In Windows, go to Settings > Apps > Default Apps > Choose default apps by file type, or right-click any .rle file and see which application opens it.Affected if .rle files are set to open with XnView Classic
-
Scan for downloaded or untrusted .rle filesSearch the system for .rle files, particularly in download folders, email attachments, or shared network locations. Use command: dir /s /b C:\*.rle or search using File Explorer.Affected if Any .rle files exist that originated from untrusted sources or the internet
Your environment is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and configured to open .rle files, especially if untrusted .rle files are accessible to the application.
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 downloaded .rle files in XnView Classic. Consider using alternative image viewers or updating to a patched version if available. Implement application whitelisting and antivirus scanning as additional layers of defense.
- 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-2017-10767 — 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-2017-10767 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