CVE-2017-12919
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 · uneditedHeap-based buffer overflow in OLEStream::WriteVT_LPSTR in olestrm.cpp in libfpx 1.3.1_p6 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted fpx image.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow in OLEStream::WriteVT_LPSTR function in olestrm.cpp of libfpx 1.3.1_p6 allows processing of crafted FPX (FlashPix) images to overflow heap memory boundaries, potentially 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= 1.3.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 if libfpx is installedSearch for libfpx library files on the system. Common locations include /usr/lib/, /usr/local/lib/, or via package manager (dpkg -l | grep fpx, rpm -qa | grep fpx, or find / -name '*fpx*' -o -name '*libfpx*')Affected if libfpx library files are found on the system
-
Determine the installed libfpx versionCheck the version of the installed library. If compiled from source, check the source directory for version markers. If from package manager, use: dpkg -s libfpx or rpm -qi libfpx. Also check any version files or strings within the library binary itself (strings /path/to/libfpx.so | grep -i version)Affected if The version is exactly 1.3.1 or if the version cannot be determined and libfpx is present
-
Verify FPX image processing capabilityCheck if applications or services on the system process FPX (FlashPix) image files. Search for file format handlers, image converters, or libraries that reference FPX support. Look for olestrm.cpp in any source trees or compiled binariesAffected if FPX/FlashPix image processing functionality exists and the vulnerable OLEStream::WriteVT_LPSTR function is used
-
Inspect for vulnerable code in olestrm.cppIf source code is available, locate olestrm.cpp and examine the WriteVT_LPSTR function for bounds checking. Search for any recent modifications or patches applied to this fileAffected if The WriteVT_LPSTR function lacks proper buffer size validation before writing LPSTR data
A system is affected if libfpx version 1.3.1 is installed and FPX image processing using the OLEStream::WriteVT_LPSTR function is enabled.
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 libfpx to a patched version if available, or apply bounds checking fixes to the WriteVT_LPSTR function to validate buffer sizes before writing. Restrict processing of untrusted FPX files.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12919 — 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-2017-12919 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