CVE-2017-9904
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 cause a denial of service or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted .fpx file, related to "Data from Faulting Address controls Branch Selection starting at ntdll_77df0000!RtlpLowFragHeapFree+0x000000000000001f."
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 confidenceXnView Classic 2.40 contains a heap corruption vulnerability when parsing malformed .fpx files. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to trigger a fault in the low fragmentation heap function (RtlpLowFragHeapFree), potentially enabling denial of service or possibly arbitrary code execution through controlled memory corruption.
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.
-
Verify XnView Classic is installedLook for XnView installation by checking Program Files directories or using system search for XnView.exe, or review installed programs in Add or Remove ProgramsAffected if XnView Classic is present on the system
-
Determine installed XnView versionRight-click XnView.exe, select Properties, then view the Version tab to read the File Version; alternatively, run 'xnview.exe /?' or check Add/Remove Programs for the versionAffected if The version is exactly 2.40
-
Confirm .fpx file handling capabilityCheck if .fpx file extension is associated with XnView by looking at file type associations in Windows Explorer, or attempt to open a .fpx file in XnView to see if it attempts processingAffected if XnView can open or preview .fpx files and attempts to parse them
-
Inspect for recent .fpx file processingReview Windows Event Viewer Application logs or XnView's own logs (if enabled) for recent .fpx file opens, or check recent documents folder for .fpx files that may have been viewedAffected if Any .fpx files have been opened in XnView on this system
A user is affected if XnView Classic version 2.40 is installed and can process .fpx files, since the heap corruption triggers during malformed .fpx file parsing.
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 dataDo not open untrusted .fpx files in XnView. Monitor for vendor patches for XnView Classic 2.40 and apply updates when available.
- 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-2017-9904 — 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-2017-9904 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