Search CVE reports

In libexif through 0.6.25, an integer underflow in size checking for Fuji and Olympus MakerNote decoding could be used by attackers to crash or leak information out of libexif-using programs.

In libexif through 0.6.25, an unsigned 32bit integer overflow in Nikon MakerNote handling could be used by local attackers to cause crashes or information leaks. This only affects 32bit systems.

libexif through 0.6.25 has a flaw in decoding MakerNotes. If the exif_mnote_data_get_value function gets passed in a 0 size, the passed in-buffer would be overwritten due to an integer underflow.

In exif_entry_get_value of exif-entry.c, there is a possible out of bounds write due to an integer overflow. This could lead to remote code execution if a third party app used this library to process remote image data with...

In exif_data_load_data_thumbnail of exif-data.c, there is a possible denial of service due to an integer overflow. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not...

In exif_data_load_data_content of exif-data.c, there is a possible UBSAN abort due to an integer overflow. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for...

In exif_entry_get_value of exif-entry.c, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not...

An issue was discovered in libexif before 0.6.22. Use of uninitialized memory in EXIF Makernote handling could lead to crashes and potential use-after-free conditions.

An issue was discovered in libexif before 0.6.22. An unrestricted size in handling Canon EXIF MakerNote data could lead to consumption of large amounts of compute time for decoding EXIF data.

An issue was discovered in libexif before 0.6.22. Several buffer over-reads in EXIF MakerNote handling could lead to information disclosure and crashes. This is different from CVE-2020-0093.