Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2017-2887
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 exploitable buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the XCF property handling functionality of SDL_image 2.0.1. A specially crafted xcf file can cause a stack-based buffer overflow resulting in potential code execution. An attacker can provide a specially crafted XCF file to trigger this vulnerability.
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 stack-based buffer overflow exists in SDL_image 2.0.1's XCF (XCF is GIMP's native image format) property handling code. When parsing a specially crafted XCF file with overly long property values, the缺乏 bounds checking allows data to overflow the allocated stack buffer, potentially 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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0= 9.0= 2.0.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Identify installed SDL_image versionRun 'dpkg -l | grep libsdl-image' on Debian systems, or check the library file with 'pkg-config --modversion SDL_image' or 'ldd /path/to/application | grep SDL_image'Affected if Version is 2.0.1 exactly
-
Check for applications using SDL_imageSearch for binaries linked against SDL_image using 'ldd $(which appname) 2>/dev/null | grep -i image' or 'dpkg -L libsdl-image-2.0-0' to list installed filesAffected if Any application that loads XCF files is linked against vulnerable SDL_image
-
Verify XCF format support is presentCheck if SDL_image was built with XCF support by examining the library or consulting system package details - XCF support is typically compiled in by default in SDL_image 2.0.1Affected if XCF support is compiled into the installed SDL_image library
-
Identify applications that process XCF filesReview installed graphics applications (GIMP, image viewers) to determine if they use SDL_image for image loading; check application dependencies with 'apt-cache depends application-name'Affected if Applications that open XCF files depend on the vulnerable SDL_image version
You are affected if SDL_image version 2.0.1 is installed and any application using it can open or process XCF format images.
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 SDL_image to version 2.0.2 or later which contains the fix. Until upgraded, avoid opening untrusted XCF files in applications using SDL_image.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-2887 — 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-2017-2887 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