CVE-2019-17497
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 · uneditedTracker PDF-XChange Editor before 8.0.330.0 has an NTLM SSO hash theft vulnerability using crafted FDF or XFDF files (a related issue to CVE-2018-4993). For example, an NTLM hash is sent for a link to \\192.168.0.2\C$\file.pdf without user interaction.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencePDF-XChange Editor before version 8.0.330.0 contains an NTLM SSO hash theft vulnerability. When a user opens a specially crafted FDF or XFDF file containing a UNC path link (such as \\192.168.0.2\C$\file.pdf), the application automatically authenticates to the attacker's server, transmitting the user's NTLM hash without user interaction.
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< 8.0.330.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 installed PDF-XChange Editor versionOpen PDF-XChange Editor, go to Help > About, or check the application file properties (right-click the executable > Properties > Details). Record the exact version number shown.Affected if The installed version is below 8.0.330.0 (for example, 8.0.329.0, 8.0.320.0, 7.0, 6.0, etc.)
-
Verify FDF/XFDF file handling capabilityAttempt to open or create a sample .fdf or .xfdf file in PDF-XChange Editor, or check File > Open dialog for these file types. These are standard file formats supported by the application.Affected if The application can open or process FDF and XFDF files (this is enabled by default in vulnerable versions)
-
Confirm NTLM authentication is in useCheck if the Windows environment uses NTLM authentication. This can be verified via Group Policy (gpedit.msc) under Computer Configuration > Windows Settings > Security Settings > Network security: LAN manager authentication level, or by inspecting network logs for NTLM handshake patterns.Affected if The environment uses NTLM or NTLMv2 authentication (value set to 'Send NTLM response only' or 'Send NTLMv2 response only' or lower)
You are affected if PDF-XChange Editor version is below 8.0.330.0 and you open FDF/XFDF files from untrusted sources while NTLM authentication is enabled in your environment.
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 data8.0.330.0
Upgrade PDF-XChange Editor to version 8.0.330.0 or later. Additionally, consider disabling NTLM authentication at the network level or blocking outbound SMB connections (ports 445/139) to prevent hash theft.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-17497 — 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-2019-17497 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