CVE-2017-9440
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 · uneditedIn ImageMagick 7.0.5-5, a memory leak was found in the function ReadPSDChannel in coders/psd.c, which allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted file.
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 confidenceImageMagick 7.0.5-5 contains a memory leak in the ReadPSDChannel function within coders/psd.c when parsing Photoshop Document (PSD) files. Attackers can trigger the leak by supplying a specially crafted PSD file, causing memory allocation without corresponding deallocation. Repeated exploitation leads to memory exhaustion and denial of service.
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= 7.0.5-5CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Check installed ImageMagick versionRun 'convert -version' or 'identify -version' and note the version stringAffected if The version shown is exactly 7.0.5-5
-
Verify PSD delegate supportRun 'convert -list configure | grep DELEGATES' or check if PSD files can be identified with 'identify -verbose sample.psd'Affected if PSDs are listed as supported or ImageMagick can read a PSD file without error
-
Check for PSD policy restrictionsLook for a policy.xml file (commonly at /etc/ImageMagick-6/policy.xml or /etc/ImageMagick/policy.xml) and check for entries restricting PSD read rightsAffected if No policy entry exists that blocks or restricts PSD file reading, meaning PSD processing is allowed
You are affected if ImageMagick version is exactly 7.0.5-5 and PSD file processing is enabled without policy restrictions blocking it.
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 ImageMagick to the latest version which includes the patch for this vulnerability. Alternatively, disable or restrict PSD file processing via ImageMagick's delegate policies or security configuration if immediate patching is not feasible.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9440 — 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-2017-9440 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