CVE-2017-12613
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 · uneditedWhen apr_time_exp*() or apr_os_exp_time*() functions are invoked with an invalid month field value in Apache Portable Runtime APR 1.6.2 and prior, out of bounds memory may be accessed in converting this value to an apr_time_exp_t value, potentially revealing the contents of a different static heap value or resulting in program termination, and may represent an information disclosure or denial of service vulnerability to applications which call these APR functions with unvalidated external input.
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 confidenceOut-of-bounds memory access vulnerability in Apache Portable Runtime (APR) versions 1.6.2 and prior. The apr_time_exp*() and apr_os_exp_time*() functions do not validate the month field value, allowing an attacker to pass an invalid month value that causes the functions to read outside intended memory bounds, potentially leaking heap contents (information disclosure) or causing program termination (DoS).
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< 1.7.0= 7.0= 9.0all versions= 1.0= 3.0.0= 1.0= 6.0= 7.0= 6.7= 7.3= 7.4= 7.5= 7.6= 7.7= 6.0= 7.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 Apache Portable Runtime installationRun 'apr-config --version' or 'pkg-config --modversion apr-1' to find the installed APR version. On Windows, check the file version of 'libapr-1.dll' in the APR installation directory.Affected if The installed version is 1.6.2 or prior, or the version cannot be determined but is reported as vulnerable by your package manager.
-
Check application dependencies for APRUse 'ldd <executable>' on Linux or examine the application's dependency list to confirm it links to the vulnerable APR library.Affected if The application depends on a vulnerable version of libapr-1.so or libapr-1.dll.
-
Audit code for vulnerable function usageSearch source code for calls to apr_time_exp_gmt(), apr_time_exp_lt(), apr_time_exp(), or their apr_os_exp_time*() variants. Review the code paths that populate the month field (tm_mon) before these calls.Affected if The code passes user-controlled or unvalidated input to the month field of these functions without range checking.
-
Inspect binary for function callsUse 'objdump -T <binary> | grep apr_time_exp' or 'nm <binary> | grep apr_time_exp' to list references to the vulnerable functions in compiled binaries.Affected if The binary links to and calls apr_time_exp*() functions without evidence of month field validation in surrounding code.
You are affected if your system has Apache Portable Runtime version 1.6.2 or earlier AND your applications use the apr_time_exp*() or apr_os_exp_time*() functions with unvalidated month field 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 data1.7.0
Add input validation to ensure the month field value is within valid range (1-12) before calling apr_time_exp*() or apr_os_exp_time*() functions, or upgrade to a patched version of APR.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12613 — 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 sources- www.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- www.openwall.com
- www.securitytracker.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- lists.debian.org
- lists.debian.org
- svn.apache.org
- www.securityfocus.com
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- lists.apache.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-12613 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