CVE-2017-9154
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 · uneditedlibautotrace.a in AutoTrace 0.31.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (invalid read and SEGV), related to the GET_COLOR function in color.c:16:11.
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 denial of service vulnerability in AutoTrace 0.31.1 allows remote attackers to trigger an invalid memory read in the GET_COLOR function in color.c, leading to a segmentation fault. The vulnerability stems from insufficient bounds checking when processing color data, causing the function to read beyond allocated memory boundaries.
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= 0.31.1CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Determine if AutoTrace is installedRun 'autotrace --version' or check for the autotrace binary in common paths like /usr/bin/autotrace, /usr/local/bin/autotrace, or via package manager queryAffected if AutoTrace binary is found on the system
-
Identify the installed AutoTrace versionExecute 'autotrace --version' and capture the output, or use package management commands like 'dpkg -l | grep autotrace' or 'rpm -qa | grep autotrace' depending on your Linux distributionAffected if The version shown is exactly 0.31.1
-
Verify the vulnerable color.c source file is presentLocate the source code or binary distribution and check for color.c, or inspect the binary for the GET_COLOR function symbol if compiledAffected if The color.c source file or GET_COLOR function exists in the installed version
-
Assess exposure to untrusted input filesReview whether AutoTrace processes input files from untrusted or external sources, check file processing workflows and automation that may pass user-supplied files to autotraceAffected if AutoTrace is used to process files from untrusted or unknown sources
The system is affected only if AutoTrace version 0.31.1 is installed AND it processes input files from untrusted sources that could trigger the invalid memory read in GET_COLOR.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of AutoTrace if available; otherwise, implement input validation in the GET_COLOR function to ensure color indices/values are within valid bounds before dereferencing, and restrict processing of untrusted input files.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9154 — 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-2017-9154 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