CVE-2017-14501
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 · uneditedAn out-of-bounds read flaw exists in parse_file_info in archive_read_support_format_iso9660.c in libarchive 3.3.2 when extracting a specially crafted iso9660 iso file, related to archive_read_format_iso9660_read_header.
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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in libarchive 3.3.2 within the parse_file_info function in archive_read_support_format_iso9660.c when processing ISO9660 image files. The vulnerability occurs during header reading (archive_read_format_iso9660_read_header) when a specially crafted ISO9660 file is extracted, potentially allowing an attacker to read memory beyond allocated buffers.
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= 3.3.2CVSS 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 installed libarchive versionRun 'archive --version' or check your system's package manager for the libarchive package version (e.g., dpkg -l libarchive, rpm -q libarchive, or brew list libarchive)Affected if The version shown is exactly 3.3.2
-
Locate libarchive library fileFind the shared library file: run 'find /usr -name "libarchive*" -type f' or check the library path reported by 'ldconfig -p | grep archive'Affected if The library file links to version 3.3.2
-
Verify ISO9660 format support is compiled inRun 'archivectl' (if available) or check the compiled features of your libarchive binary; on Linux, 'objdump -p /path/to/libarchive.so | grep -i iso9660' may show if the ISO9660 reader is includedAffected if ISO9660 support is present in the built library
-
Determine if your application uses libarchive to process ISO imagesReview application dependencies (ldd on the binary, or check application's documentation) to confirm it links against libarchive, then check if the workflow involves extracting ISO9660 filesAffected if Your workflow processes ISO9660 files through libarchive version 3.3.2
You are affected if libarchive version 3.3.2 is installed AND your environment uses libarchive to extract or read ISO9660 image files.
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 libarchive to version 3.3.3 or later which contains the fix for this bounds checking issue. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement strict input validation on ISO9660 files before extraction and consider sandboxing extraction operations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14501 — 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-2017-14501 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