CVE-2017-12960
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 · uneditedThere is a reachable assertion abort in the function dict_rename_var() in data/dictionary.c of the libpspp library in GNU PSPP before 1.0.1 that will lead to remote denial of service.
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 reachable assertion in dict_rename_var() in data/dictionary.c of libpspp (GNU PSPP before 1.0.1) can be triggered by specially crafted input, causing the application to abort and result in 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= 0.11.0CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Check if PSPP is installedRun 'pspp --version' or 'pspp -v' on the command line. On Windows, check for PSPP in Program Files or use 'where pspp'.Affected if PSPP is not installed - not affected; if installed, continue to next step
-
Determine installed PSPP versionThe command output from the previous step will display the version number (for example: PSPP 0.11.0 or PSPP 0.10.1)Affected if If version shown is 1.0.1 or higher, not affected; if version is below 1.0.1 (such as 0.11.0 or earlier), potentially affected
-
Identify if dictionary operations are usedThe vulnerability is in dict_rename_var() function in data/dictionary.c which processes variable renaming in PSPP data files. Check if your PSPP workflows process .sav, .por, or .sps data files, particularly those from untrusted sources.Affected if If you process any PSPP data files using an affected version, you are at risk; the specially crafted input can trigger the assertion abort
You are affected if PSPP version 0.11.0 or any version before 1.0.1 is installed and you process PSPP data files (.sav, .por, .sps), especially from untrusted sources.
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 dataUpgrade to GNU PSPP 1.0.1 or later which contains the fix for the assertion issue in dict_rename_var(). If upgrading is not immediately possible, avoid processing untrusted PSPP data files (.sav, .por, .sps) from unknown sources.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-12960 — 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-2017-12960 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