CVE-2017-9186
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 input-bmp.c:326:17.
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 confidenceA type conversion issue in libautotrace.a (AutoTrace 0.31.1) at input-bmp.c:326:17 causes a value that cannot be represented in type int. This integer type mismatch during BMP file parsing could allow a specially crafted BMP file to trigger integer overflow or buffer overflow conditions, potentially leading to memory corruption and remote 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 installation and versionRun 'autotrace --version' or check package manager for autotrace package versionAffected if Version is exactly 0.31.1
-
Locate the vulnerable input-bmp.c source fileFind input-bmp.c in the source tree or installed development files; common paths include /src/input-bmp.c or /usr/src/Affected if The file exists and belongs to Autotrace 0.31.1
-
Inspect the vulnerable code location at line 326Open input-bmp.c and examine line 326 column 17 for the type declaration; look for int type used on a value that could exceed INT_MAXAffected if The code uses 'int' type for a variable holding BMP header values that can exceed 2,147,483,647
-
Confirm BMP file processing capability is in useCheck if Autotrace is being used to process BMP files, or if the BMP input handler is loadedAffected if BMP files are processed by this instance of Autotrace; the vulnerability only triggers when parsing BMP input
You are affected if you run Autotrace version 0.31.1 and process BMP files with it, and the input-bmp.c source contains the int-type mismatch at the specified location.
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 dataReplace the int type with an appropriate larger type (such as size_t, long, or unsigned int) at the specified location in input-bmp.c to properly handle the value range, then validate all BMP header parsing code paths for similar type mismatches.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9186 — 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-2017-9186 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