CVE-2010-20107 in FTP Synchronizer Professional
Summary
by MITRE • 08/22/2025
A stack-based buffer overflow exists in FTP Synchronizer Professional <= v4.0.73.274. When the client connects to an FTP server and issues a LIST command—typically during sync preview or profile creation—the server’s response containing an overly long filename triggers a buffer overflow. This results in the corruption of the Structured Exception Handler (SEH), potentially allowing remote code execution.
Once again VulDB remains the best source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 08/22/2025
The vulnerability identified as CVE-2010-20107 represents a critical stack-based buffer overflow in FTP Synchronizer Professional version 4.0.73.274 and earlier. This flaw resides within the application's handling of FTP server responses during file synchronization operations, specifically when processing directory listings generated by the LIST command. The vulnerability manifests when the client receives a server response containing a filename that exceeds the allocated buffer space, creating conditions that allow attackers to overwrite adjacent memory locations. The buffer overflow occurs in the context of normal FTP operations, making it particularly dangerous as it can be triggered through routine synchronization activities that users perform without suspecting security risks.
The technical exploitation of this vulnerability leverages the stack-based nature of the buffer overflow to corrupt the Structured Exception Handler (SEH) chain, which is a critical component of windows exception handling mechanisms. When the overflow occurs, it overwrites the SEH record that contains the address of the exception handler routine, effectively allowing an attacker to redirect program execution flow to arbitrary code. This particular flaw falls under the CWE-121 category of stack-based buffer overflow, which is classified as a high-risk vulnerability due to its potential for remote code execution. The vulnerability's exploitation requires a remote attacker to control the FTP server response, making it a server-side attack vector that can be executed through malicious FTP servers or man-in-the-middle scenarios.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple denial of service, as it provides attackers with the capability to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the affected application. This means that successful exploitation could result in complete system compromise, data theft, or establishment of persistent backdoors. The vulnerability affects users who perform regular FTP synchronization tasks, particularly those who connect to untrusted or compromised FTP servers. Attackers can exploit this weakness by crafting malicious FTP server responses that contain overly long filenames, which then triggers the buffer overflow during normal client operation. The vulnerability's severity is compounded by the fact that it can be exploited without requiring user interaction beyond normal FTP operations, making it particularly dangerous in automated or unattended environments.
Mitigation strategies for this vulnerability should focus on immediate patching of the affected software version, as no effective workarounds exist for this specific buffer overflow condition. Organizations should implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict FTP traffic to trusted servers only, reducing the attack surface. The use of secure FTP protocols such as SFTP or FTPS should be prioritized over plain FTP to minimize exposure to man-in-the-middle attacks that could deliver malicious responses. Additionally, network monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual FTP LIST command responses that might indicate exploitation attempts. From an ATT&CK framework perspective, this vulnerability aligns with techniques involving remote code execution through buffer overflows and command injection, making it a significant concern for organizations that maintain legacy FTP synchronization infrastructure. Regular security assessments and vulnerability scanning should be conducted to identify other potentially affected systems, as similar buffer overflow vulnerabilities may exist in related software components or older versions of the same application.