CVE-2017-9187
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:486:7.
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 confidenceAutoTrace 0.31.1 libautotrace.a contains an integer type handling issue in input-bmp.c where a value at line 486 cannot be represented in type int, likely an integer overflow when parsing BMP image headers. This occurs during BMP file input processing and could allow heap corruption or out-of-bounds memory access when processing specially crafted BMP files.
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.
-
Check installed AutoTrace versionRun 'autotrace --version' or check the package manager for autotrace package versionAffected if Version shown is 0.31.1 (the only affected version listed)
-
Locate libautotrace.a librarySearch for libautotrace.a in standard library paths such as /usr/lib/, /usr/local/lib/, or compile-time lib directory using 'find /usr -name libautotrace.a 2>/dev/null'Affected if libautotrace.a exists on the system and was built from AutoTrace 0.31.1 source code
-
Identify BMP input processing usageInspect application logs, source code, or runtime environment for BMP file processing via AutoTrace functions (autotrace_read_bmp or similar BMP import routines)Affected if AutoTrace is being used to process BMP image files as input
-
Verify input-bmp.c is part of the buildCheck if the application links against libautotrace.a containing the vulnerable input-bmp.c component by examining binary dependencies with 'ldd' or 'objdump -p <binary>'Affected if The binary links to libautotrace.a and loads the BMP input handler module
The environment is affected if AutoTrace version 0.31.1 is installed, libautotrace.a is present, and BMP files are being processed through the vulnerable BMP header parsing code in input-bmp.c.
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 that corrects the type handling in input-bmp.c, or replace int with an appropriate larger type (long/unsigned) to accommodate the full value range. If no patch available, restrict processing to trusted BMP files and disable AutoTrace in untrusted contexts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9187 — 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-2017-9187 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