CVE-2018-17929
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 Delta Industrial Automation TPEditor, TPEditor Versions 1.90 and prior, multiple stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities may be exploited by processing specially crafted project files lacking user input validation before copying data from project files onto the stack and may allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.
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 confidenceDelta Industrial Automation TPEditor versions 1.90 and prior contain multiple stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities in project file parsing. When processing specially crafted project files, the application copies data onto the stack without proper input validation, allowing an attacker to overwrite stack frames and potentially execute arbitrary code.
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<= 1.90CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Identify TPEditor installation and versionLocate the TPEditor executable (typically in Program Files or Program Files (x86)) and check its version properties, or open TPEditor and look in Help > About for the exact version numberAffected if Version displayed is 1.90 or lower, or if the version cannot be determined and the software appears to be an older release
-
Determine project file usageIdentify whether TPEditor is used to open, create, or edit .tp project files - look for recent .tp files in user directories or check TPEditor for recent projectsAffected if The software is used to process project files (.tp extension), as the vulnerability is triggered during project file parsing
-
Verify TPEditor executable propertiesRight-click the TPEditor executable, select Properties, and check the File Version and Product Version fields - also note the build date if visibleAffected if The executable file version shows 1.90 or prior, indicating the vulnerable version is installed
-
Check for CVE-affected software in asset inventoryReview software inventory or asset management systems for Delta Industrial Automation TPEditor installations, noting version numbers if recordedAffected if TPEditor version 1.90 or prior is found in the environment inventory
The environment is affected if Delta TPEditor version 1.90 or prior is installed and users process project files with the application, as the stack-based buffer overflow triggers when parsing specially crafted .tp project 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 dataImplement strict bounds checking and input validation on all data read from project files before copying to stack buffers. Consider migrating from stack-based buffers to heap-allocated buffers with proper size validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-17929 — 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-2018-17929 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