CVE-2017-11110
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 · uneditedThe ole_init function in ole.c in catdoc 0.95 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (heap-based buffer underflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted file, i.e., data is written to memory addresses before the beginning of the tmpBuf buffer.
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 confidenceA heap-based buffer underflow vulnerability exists in the ole_init function in ole.c of catdoc 0.95. When processing a crafted OLE file, the application writes data to memory addresses before the beginning of the tmpBuf buffer, causing memory corruption that leads to denial of service (application crash) or potentially other unspecified impact.
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= 0.95CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Check if catdoc is installedRun 'catdoc --version' or 'which catdoc' to locate the binary and determine its versionAffected if catdoc version 0.95 is returned
-
Verify exact version numberCompare the installed version output against the affected version = 0.95 exactlyAffected if The version displayed is exactly 0.95 (not higher or lower)
-
Identify OLE file processingDetermine if your workflow involves processing OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) files using catdoc, as the vulnerability triggers only when processing these filesAffected if catdoc is used to process OLE files such as .doc, .xls, or .ppt files in older OLE formats
-
Check for crash or memory corruption indicatorsMonitor catdoc execution logs or system logs for crashes, segfaults, or abnormal termination when processing OLE filesAffected if Application crashes or exhibits unexpected behavior specifically when processing OLE input files
You are affected if catdoc version 0.95 is installed and you process OLE files with it, as the heap-based buffer underflow in ole_init triggers when handling crafted OLE input.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of catdoc that includes proper bounds checking before writing to the tmpBuf buffer in ole_init. If no patch is available, implement input validation on OLE files before processing, or sanitize/filter OLE input files through a sandbox.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11110 — 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-2017-11110 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