ghsa-hvh3-xpr5-c2c8
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-13 01:14
Modified
2022-05-13 01:14
Severity ?
Details
In coders/ps.c in ImageMagick 7.0.7-0 Q16, a DoS in ReadPSImage() due to lack of an EOF (End of File) check might cause huge CPU consumption. When a crafted PSD file, which claims a large "extent" field in the header but does not contain sufficient backing data, is provided, the loop over "length" would consume huge CPU resources, since there is no EOF check inside the loop.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2017-14172" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-834" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2017-09-07T06:29:00Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "In coders/ps.c in ImageMagick 7.0.7-0 Q16, a DoS in ReadPSImage() due to lack of an EOF (End of File) check might cause huge CPU consumption. When a crafted PSD file, which claims a large \"extent\" field in the header but does not contain sufficient backing data, is provided, the loop over \"length\" would consume huge CPU resources, since there is no EOF check inside the loop.", "id": "GHSA-hvh3-xpr5-c2c8", "modified": "2022-05-13T01:14:38Z", "published": "2022-05-13T01:14:38Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-14172" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/issues/715" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/commit/bdbbb13f1fe9b7e2465502c500561720f7456aac" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/05/msg00015.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/09/msg00007.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201711-07" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/3681-1" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ] }
Loading...
Loading...
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.