Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4/Server 2003 SP1/XP SP2 OLE Dialog code injection
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 6.6 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4/Server 2003 SP1/XP SP2. It has been rated as critical. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component OLE Dialog. The manipulation leads to code injection. This vulnerability is listed as CVE-2007-0025. There is no available exploit. Upgrading the affected component is advised.
Details
A vulnerability was found in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4/Server 2003 SP1/XP SP2 (Operating System). It has been rated as critical. This issue affects an unknown function of the component OLE Dialog. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a code injection vulnerability. Using CWE to declare the problem leads to CWE-94. The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Impacted is confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
The MFC component in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP2, and 2003 SP1 and Visual Studio .NET 2000, 2002 SP1, 2003, and 2003 SP1 allows user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via an RTF file with a malformed OLE object that triggers memory corruption. NOTE: this might be due to a stack-based buffer overflow in the AfxOleSetEditMenu function in MFC42u.dll.
The weakness was presented 02/13/2007 by Kostya Kortchinsky with Immunity as MS07-012 as confirmed bulletin (Technet). The advisory is shared at microsoft.com. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2007-0025 since 01/03/2007. The attack may be initiated remotely. No form of authentication is needed for a successful exploitation. Neither technical details nor an exploit are publicly available. MITRE ATT&CK project uses the attack technique T1059 for this issue.
It is declared as proof-of-concept. The vulnerability scanner Nessus provides a plugin with the ID 24336 (MS07-012: Vulnerability in Microsoft MFC Could Allow Remote Code Execution (924667)), which helps to determine the existence of the flaw in a target environment. It is assigned to the family Windows : Microsoft Bulletins and running in the context l. The commercial vulnerability scanner Qualys is able to test this issue with plugin 90381 (Microsoft MFC Could Allow Remote Code Execution (MS07-012)).
Upgrading to version Vista or Server 2008 eliminates this vulnerability. Applying the patch MS07-012 is able to eliminate this problem. The bugfix is ready for download at microsoft.com. The best possible mitigation is suggested to be upgrading to the latest version. A possible mitigation has been published immediately after the disclosure of the vulnerability. Furthermore it is possible to detect and prevent this kind of attack with TippingPoint and the filter 4900.
The vulnerability is also documented in the databases at X-Force (30598), Tenable (24336), SecurityFocus (BID 22476†), OSVDB (31887†) and Secunia (SA24150†). See VDB-35684 for similar entry. If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Type
Vendor
Name
Version
License
Support
- end of life (old version)
Website
- Vendor: https://www.microsoft.com/
- Product: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔍VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 7.3VulDB Meta Temp Score: 6.6
VulDB Base Score: 7.3
VulDB Temp Score: 6.6
VulDB Vector: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔍
VulDB Temp Score: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
NVD Base Score: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Code injectionCWE: CWE-94 / CWE-74 / CWE-707
CAPEC: 🔍
ATT&CK: 🔍
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔍
Status: Proof-of-Concept
EPSS Score: 🔍
EPSS Percentile: 🔍
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔍
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Nessus ID: 24336
Nessus Name: MS07-012: Vulnerability in Microsoft MFC Could Allow Remote Code Execution (924667)
Nessus File: 🔍
Nessus Risk: 🔍
Nessus Family: 🔍
Nessus Context: 🔍
Qualys ID: 🔍
Qualys Name: 🔍
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: UpgradeStatus: 🔍
Reaction Time: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔍
Exposure Time: 🔍
Upgrade: Windows Vista/Server 2008
Patch: MS07-012
TippingPoint: 🔍
McAfee IPS: 🔍
McAfee IPS Version: 🔍
ISS Proventia IPS: 🔍
Timeline
01/03/2007 🔍02/12/2007 🔍
02/12/2007 🔍
02/12/2007 🔍
02/12/2007 🔍
02/13/2007 🔍
02/13/2007 🔍
02/13/2007 🔍
02/13/2007 🔍
02/13/2007 🔍
02/15/2007 🔍
01/05/2025 🔍
Sources
Vendor: microsoft.comProduct: microsoft.com
Advisory: MS07-012
Researcher: Kostya Kortchinsky
Organization: Immunity
Status: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2007-0025 (🔍)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2007-0025
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-2933
OVAL: 🔍
IAVM: 🔍
CERT: 🔍
X-Force: 30598
SecurityFocus: 22476 - Microsoft MFC Embedded OLE Object Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Secunia: 24150 - Microsoft MFC OLE Dialog Memory Corruption Vulnerability, Moderately Critical
OSVDB: 31887 - Microsoft MFC Component RTF OLE Object Memory Corruption Remote Code Execution
SecurityTracker: 1017638
Vulnerability Center: 14279 - [MS07-012] Microsoft Windows and Visual Studio MFC Component Memory Corruption via an RTF File, Medium
Vupen: ADV-2007-0581
See also: 🔍
Entry
Created: 02/15/2007 16:09Updated: 01/05/2025 13:48
Changes: 02/15/2007 16:09 (94), 09/16/2018 08:25 (9), 01/05/2025 13:48 (17)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.