CVE-2017-9901
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 "Data from Faulting Address controls subsequent Write Address starting at Xfpx!gffGetFormatInfo+0x000000000002bfd5."
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 for Windows Version 2.40 contains a memory corruption vulnerability in its .fpx (FlashPix) image format parser. The vulnerability allows remote code execution when processing a specially crafted .fpx file due to an out-of-bounds write where data from a faulting address controls a subsequent write address in the gffGetFormatInfo function.
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.
-
Confirm XnView installationCheck for XnView installation by searching for the executable. Common paths: C:\Program Files\XnView\xnview.exe or C:\Program Files (x86)\XnView\xnview.exe. Also check Start Menu or desktop shortcuts.Affected if XnView is installed on the system
-
Verify XnView versionRight-click xnview.exe, select Properties, then go to the Details tab to view the File Version. Alternatively, open XnView and go to Help > About to see the version number.Affected if Version displayed is exactly 2.40
-
Confirm .fpx file handling is availableVerify that XnView has not disabled .fpx format support. Check XnView's configuration under Tools > Options > File Associations or similar to confirm .fpx is a recognized extension.Affected if .fpx files are recognized and can be opened by XnView
-
Inspect for recent .fpx file processingCheck file browser history, recent documents, or Windows Jump Lists for any .fpx files that have been opened. Also examine the XnView recent files list if accessible.Affected if Any .fpx files have been opened or processed in XnView version 2.40
A user is affected if XnView version 2.40 is installed, .fpx file support is enabled, and the user has opened or could open a specially crafted .fpx file.
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 or unexpected .fpx files in XnView. If possible, upgrade to a patched version of XnView, or use alternative image viewing software that has active security support. Network-based defenses can inspect and block files with .fpx extensions from untrusted sources.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-9901 — 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-2017-9901 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