CVE-2017-2579
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 vulnerability was found in netpbm before 10.61. The expandCodeOntoStack() function has an insufficient code value check, so that a maliciously crafted file could cause the application to crash or possibly allows code execution.
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 confidenceOut-of-bounds read vulnerability in netpbm image library's expandCodeOntoStack() function due to insufficient validation of code values. A maliciously crafted image file can trigger reads beyond allocated memory boundaries, potentially causing denial-of-service (crash) or enabling arbitrary code execution.
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= 10.61.00CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 netpbm is installedRun 'which netpbm' or 'which pnmtopng' or 'which anytopnm' to see if any netpbm utilities are present in PATH. Also check for package manager listings: 'dpkg -l | grep netpbm' (Debian) or 'rpm -qa | grep netpbm' (RPM-based).Affected if No netpbm utilities are found on the system, so the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Identify the installed netpbm versionRun 'netpbm --version' or 'pnmtopng --version' or use 'netpbm-config --version'. If installed via package manager, check the package version with 'dpkg -s netpbm' or 'rpm -qi netpbm'.Affected if The installed version is exactly 10.61.00, indicating the vulnerable release.
-
Confirm the specific vulnerable binary or libraryCheck the detailed version string output by any netpbm utility (e.g., 'anytopnm --version'). Look for references to the expandCodeOntoStack function in any crash logs or error reports if untrusted images were processed.Affected if The binary reports version 10.61.00 and was used to process a potentially malicious image file.
-
Review image processing usage patternsAudit any scripts, workflows, or automated systems that invoke netpbm utilities (pnmtopng, pnmtosgi, gif2png, etc.) to process image files from untrusted sources. Check process accounting or application logs for recent netpbm invocations.Affected if Netpbm version 10.61.00 is actively used to process user-supplied or network-received image files.
You are affected if netpbm version 10.61.00 is installed and is being used to process image files, particularly 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 netpbm version 10.61 or later which contains the proper bounds checking fix. Until patched, avoid processing untrusted or unknown image files with netpbm utilities.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2579 — 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-2017-2579 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