CVE-2017-12924
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 · uneditedCDirVector::GetTable in dirfunc.hxx in libfpx 1.3.1_p6 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero error) 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 confidenceA divide-by-zero vulnerability exists in CDirVector::GetTable in dirfunc.hxx in libfpx 1.3.1_p6. When processing a specially crafted FlashPix (fpx) image file, the GetTable function performs a division operation without validating that the divisor is non-zero, causing the application to crash.
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 libfpx installation and versionSearch for libfpx library files (libfpx.so, libfpx.a, fpx related files) and check their version metadata. On Linux: find /usr -name '*fpx*' 2>/dev/null; check package manager for libfpx version (dpkg -l | grep fpx or rpm -qa | grep fpx).Affected if libfpx version 1.3.1 is installed and processes FlashPix (fpx) image files
-
Locate the vulnerable source fileCheck if dirfunc.hxx exists in the libfpx source tree or installed headers. The vulnerable function CDirVector::GetTable is defined in this file.Affected if The file dirfunc.hxx with the GetTable function exists in the environment and is used by applications processing fpx files
-
Verify fpx file processing capabilityDetermine if any application or tool in the environment is configured to process FlashPix (.fpx) image files. Check for fpx-related image processing tools, file parsers, or applications that accept fpx as input.Affected if Any application or service processes or parses fpx image files using libfpx
-
Check for untrusted fpx inputIdentify if fpx files from untrusted sources can be processed. Look for services that accept image uploads, image processing pipelines, or file parsers that handle fpx format.Affected if The environment processes fpx files from external or untrusted sources without additional validation
A user is affected if libfpx version 1.3.1 is installed and processes FlashPix (fpx) image files, particularly from untrusted sources, since the divide-by-zero in CDirVector::GetTable will cause a crash when parsing a specially crafted fpx file.
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 dataApply a patch that adds validation to ensure the divisor is non-zero before performing the division operation in CDirVector::GetTable, or upgrade to a patched version of libfpx if available. Implement input validation for fpx files before processing.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12924 — 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-2017-12924 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