CVE-2017-10771
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+0x0000000000000510."
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 for Windows Version 2.40 contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing crafted .RLE files. The vulnerability is triggered via 'Data from Faulting Address controls Branch Selection' at ntdll!RtlpCreateSplitBlock, indicating that attacker-controlled data from the malformed file corrupts memory and influences program execution flow, potentially enabling code execution or causing 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 installation by looking in Program Files for the XnView folder, or search for xnview.exe in typical Windows installation paths (C:\Program Files\XnView\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView\)Affected if XnView Classic executable (xnview.exe) is present on the system
-
Confirm the installed version numberRight-click xnview.exe, select Properties, then view the Details tab to find the File Version, or run the executable and check Help > About XnViewAffected if The version reported is 2.40 exactly
-
Check .RLE file association or handling capabilityAttempt to open or check file type associations for .RLE files in XnView, or verify the software can handle RLE format by checking supported formats in XnView preferences or Help > Supported FormatsAffected if XnView can process .RLE files (this is a built-in format capability in version 2.40)
A user is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and the software can open or preview .RLE files (which is a native capability in this version), allowing a crafted .RLE file to trigger the memory corruption when 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. Upgrade to a patched version if available from the vendor, or consider using alternative image viewing software that receives regular security updates.
- 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-2017-10771 — 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-2017-10771 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