CVE-2017-17080
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 · uneditedelf.c in the Binary File Descriptor (BFD) library (aka libbfd), as distributed in GNU Binutils 2.29.1, does not validate sizes of core notes, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (bfd_getl32 heap-based buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted object file, related to elfcore_grok_netbsd_procinfo, elfcore_grok_openbsd_procinfo, and elfcore_grok_nto_status.
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 confidenceThe BFD library's elf.c does not validate sizes of core notes before reading them, allowing a heap-based buffer over-read (via bfd_getl32) when processing a crafted object file. This triggers a denial of service through application crash. The vulnerability affects three specific functions that parse NetBSD, OpenBSD, and NTO procinfo/status structures.
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= 2.29.1CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/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.
-
Check installed binutils versionRun `binutils --version` or `ld -V` to identify the installed binutils versionAffected if Version is exactly 2.29.1
-
Locate the BFD library versionCheck the libbfd.so shared library file or run `objdump -v` on a binary linked against libbfd to confirm the BFD library versionAffected if The BFD library version reports as 2.29.1
-
Identify ELF processing workflowsReview any custom tools, scripts, or applications that use libbfd to process ELF files, especially core dump filesAffected if The environment uses tools that call BFD functions to parse ELF core notes from NetBSD, OpenBSD, or QNX NTO systems
-
Inspect ELF core note handling codeIf using a custom program linked against libbfd, verify whether it calls functions that process procinfo or status structures in ELF core files (such as functions named for NetBSD, OpenBSD, or NTO core note parsing)Affected if Custom code processes ELF core notes from NetBSD, OpenBSD, or NTO environments using vulnerable BFD functions
A user is affected if they run binutils version 2.29.1 and process ELF core dumps from NetBSD, OpenBSD, or QNX NTO systems using libbfd functions that parse core note structures.
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 Binutils to a version where this vulnerability is fixed (2.30 or later). If upgrading is not feasible, implement input validation to reject crafted ELF files with malformed core note sizes before passing them to libbfd.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,256.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-17080 — 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-2017-17080 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