CVE-2018-11416
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 · uneditedjpegoptim.c in jpegoptim 1.4.5 (fixed in 1.4.6) has an invalid use of realloc() and free(), which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact.
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 confidencejpegoptim 1.4.5 contains a memory management vulnerability where realloc() and free() are used incorrectly, leading to potential memory corruption, double-free, or use-after-free conditions. When processing a specially crafted JPEG file, remote attackers can trigger application crashes or potentially achieve unspecified 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= 1.4.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/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 jpegoptim is installedRun 'which jpegoptim' or 'command -v jpegoptim' to locate the binaryAffected if jpegoptim is not found on the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Determine installed jpegoptim versionRun 'jpegoptim --version' and capture the version string from the outputAffected if The displayed version is 1.4.5 exactly, making the installation vulnerable
-
Cross-reference with package manager versionIf installed via a package manager, query the installed package version (dpkg -l jpegoptim, rpm -qi jpegoptim, or equivalent)Affected if The package version resolves to 1.4.5 indicating the affected release
-
Confirm processing contextIdentify if jpegoptim processes files from untrusted or external sources, as the flaw requires a specially crafted JPEG file to triggerAffected if The tool is used to process untrusted or user-submitted JPEG files without additional safeguards
A system is affected only if jpegoptim version 1.4.5 is installed AND is used to process potentially untrusted JPEG files.
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 dataUpgrade jpegoptim to version 1.4.6 or later to resolve the invalid memory handling. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict processing of untrusted JPEG files until the upgrade can be applied.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11416 — 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-2018-11416 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