Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| red_hat_products Red Hat · All currently supported Red Hat products | not affected vulnerable code not present | no version stated | not applicable | csaf_redhat | |
| https://github.com/exiftool/exiftool | affected | < cf0f4e7dcd024ca99615bfd1102a841a25dde031 | vendor fix → cf0f4e7dcd024ca99615bfd1102a841a25dde031 | osv | |
| https://github.com/exiftool/exiftool | fixed | cf0f4e7dcd024ca99615bfd1102a841a25dde031 | vendor fix → cf0f4e7dcd024ca99615bfd1102a841a25dde031 | osv | |
| ExifTool/ExifTool ExifTool · ExifTool | affected | >=7.44, <12.24 | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.