CVE-2017-9162
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 has a "cannot be represented in type int" issue in autotrace.c:191:2.
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 · moderate confidencelibautotrace.a in AutoTrace 0.31.1 contains an integer type representation issue at autotrace.c:191:2 where a value 'cannot be represented in type int', indicating an integer overflow or signed/unsigned conversion vulnerability that could be triggered during image processing, potentially leading to memory corruption and 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= 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Verify AutoTrace installationRun 'which autotrace' or check common installation paths such as /usr/bin/autotrace, /usr/local/bin/autotrace, or search for autotrace binary using 'find / -name autotrace 2>/dev/null'Affected if AutoTrace binary is not found - the software is not installed and this CVE does not apply
-
Determine installed AutoTrace versionRun 'autotrace --version' or 'autotrace -v' to obtain the version number. If built from source, check the configure.ac, configure, or autotrace.c file for the version string.Affected if The version displayed is 0.31.1 exactly - this is the affected version
-
Check for vulnerable library presenceSearch for libautotrace.a using 'find / -name libautotrace.a 2>/dev/null' or check installation directories like /usr/lib, /usr/local/libAffected if libautotrace.a exists and is from version 0.31.1 - the vulnerable library is present
-
Confirm image processing capabilityRun 'autotrace --help' to verify the tool can process image files (input-format options, processing flags)Affected if AutoTrace is installed at version 0.31.1 and accepts image input - the vulnerable code path can be triggered during image processing
A user is affected if AutoTrace version 0.31.1 is installed and used to process images, as the integer overflow at autotrace.c:191:2 can be triggered during image processing operations.
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 AutoTrace to latest version or apply vendor patch; if unavailable, minimize attack surface by restricting untrusted input processing and network exposure to AutoTrace functionality.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9162 — 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-2017-9162 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