CVE-2017-9895
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 · uneditedXnView Classic for Windows Version 2.40 allows remote attackers to execute code via a crafted .fpx file, related to a "Read Access Violation on Control Flow starting at Xfpx!gffGetFormatInfo+0x0000000000020e95."
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 confidenceXnView Classic 2.40 contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing FlashPix (.fpx) image files. A specially crafted .fpx file triggers a read access violation at Xfpx!gffGetFormatInfo, allowing remote attackers to potentially control execution flow and achieve 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= 2.40CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 if XnView is installedLook for XnView executable in common installation directories (C:\Program Files\XnView\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView\) or search for xnview.exe on the systemAffected if XnView is not installed on the system
-
Verify the installed XnView versionRight-click xnview.exe, select Properties, and check the File Version under the Details tab. Alternatively, run 'xnview.exe -help' or check the About section in the applicationAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.40
-
Confirm FlashPix (.fpx) file support existsCheck if the Xfpx.dll file exists in the XnView installation directory (typically in a plugin or plugin file folder)Affected if The FlashPix filter/plugin (Xfpx.dll or similar) is present and loaded by XnView
-
Check for recent .fpx file handlingReview browser download history, email attachments, or file system for recently accessed .fpx files. Check XnView's recent files list if availableAffected if User has opened or attempted to open a specially crafted .fpx file in XnView
User is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed AND the FlashPix (.fpx) file parsing functionality is present and a malicious .fpx file has been opened
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 dataAvoid opening untrusted .fpx files in XnView. Check for vendor updates or patches for XnView Classic. If no patch available, consider using application sandboxing or alternative image viewers for untrusted files.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9895 — 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-2017-9895 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