CVE-2017-10770
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!RtlpCreateSplitBlock+0x000000000000053a."
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 confidenceBuffer overflow/memory corruption vulnerability in XnView Classic v2.40 when parsing crafted RLE image files. The vulnerability manifests in the ntdll function RtlpCreateSplitBlock where data from a faulting address controls branch selection, leading to denial of service or potentially 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.
-
Identify XnView Classic installation and versionCheck the program's version by right-clicking the XnView.exe file, selecting Properties, and viewing the Details tab. Alternatively, run 'XnView.exe /?' or check Add/Remove Programs for the installed version.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.40 (matching = 2.40 from the affected versions range)
-
Confirm RLE image file handling capabilityLaunch XnView Classic and attempt to open or import an RLE (.rle) image file. Verify if the software can parse and display RLE format images through File > Open or by checking Tools > Format Associations.Affected if RLE format support is present and XnView can open .rle files, making the parsing vulnerability reachable
-
Inspect file association for .rle extensionsCheck XnView's configuration at Tools > Options > File Associations to see if .rle is listed as a registered extension. Also check Windows registry under HKCR\.rle for file type association with XnView.Affected if The .rle file extension is associated with XnView, allowing the application to process RLE files automatically or on demand
A user is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and the application can open or process RLE image files, allowing the buffer overflow vulnerability to trigger when a crafted .rle file is opened.
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 patches are available from XnView, apply them promptly. Consider running XnView in a sandboxed environment for handling untrusted image files.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-10770 — 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-2017-10770 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