| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Buffer overflow in the font processing component of Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP SP1 and SP2, and Windows Server 2003 allows local users to gain privileges via a specially-designed application. |
| Buffer overflow in the Telephony Application Programming Interface (TAPI) for Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows attackers to elevate privileges or execute arbitrary code via a crafted message. |
| The Hyperlink Object Library for Windows 98, 2000, XP, and Server 2003 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted link that triggers an "unchecked buffer" in the library, possibly due to a buffer overflow. |
| Internet Explorer 5.01, 5.5, and 6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via drag and drop events, aka the "Drag-and-Drop Vulnerability." |
| The License Logging service for Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 Server, and Windows Server 2003 does not properly validate the length of messages, which leads to an "unchecked buffer" and allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code, aka the "License Logging Service Vulnerability." |
| Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003 does not properly "validate the use of memory regions" for COM structured storage files, which allows attackers to execute arbitrary code, aka the "COM Structured Storage Vulnerability." |
| The Server Message Block (SMB) implementation for Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, and Server 2003 does not properly validate certain SMB packets, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via Transaction responses containing (1) Trans or (2) Trans2 commands, aka the "Server Message Block Vulnerability," and as demonstrated using Trans2 FIND_FIRST2 responses with large file name length fields. |
| An Activation function in the RPCSS Service involved with DCOM activation for Microsoft Windows 2000, XP, and 2003 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an activation request with a large length field. |
| The OLE component in Windows 98, 2000, XP, and Server 2003, and Exchange Server 5.0 through 2003, does not properly validate the lengths of messages for certain OLE data, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, aka the "Input Validation Vulnerability." |
| Unknown vulnerability in the PKINIT Protocol for Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 could allow a local user to obtain information and spoof a server via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack between a client and a domain controller when PKINIT smart card authentication is being used. |
| The Client Service for NetWare (CSNW) on Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and Sp2, and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code due to an "unchecked buffer" when processing certain crafted network messages. |
| The MIDL_user_allocate function in the Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (MSDTC) proxy (MSDTCPRX.DLL) allocates a 4K page of memory regardless of the required size, which allows attackers to overwrite arbitrary memory locations using an incorrect size value that is provided to the NdrAllocate function, which writes management data to memory outside of the allocated buffer. |
| Multiple integer overflows in the Graphics Rendering Engine (GDI32.DLL) in Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted Windows Metafile (WMF) and Enhanced Metafile (EMF) format images that lead to heap-based buffer overflows, as demonstrated using MRBP16::bCheckRecord. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in the Graphics Rendering Engine (GDI32.DLL) in Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1, related to "An unchecked buffer" and possibly buffer overflows, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted Windows Metafile (WMF) format image, aka "Windows Metafile Vulnerability." |
| Buffer overflow in a certain USB driver, as used on Microsoft Windows, allows attackers to execute arbitrary code. |
| The user interface in the Windows Firewall does not properly display certain malformed entries in the Windows Registry, which makes it easier for attackers with administrator privileges to hide activities if the administrator only uses the Windows Firewall interface to monitor exceptions. NOTE: the vendor disputes this issue, saying that since administrative privileges are already required, it is not a vulnerability. CVE has not yet formally decided if such "information hiding" issues should be included. |
| CHKDSK in Microsoft Windows 2000 before Update Rollup 1 for SP4, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003, when running in fix mode, does not properly handle security descriptors if the master file table contains a large number of files or if the descriptors do not satisfy certain NTFS conventions, which could cause ACLs for some files to be reverted to less secure defaults, or cause security descriptors to be removed. |
| The SynAttackProtect protection in Microsoft Windows 2003 before SP1 and Windows 2000 before SP4 with Update Roll-up uses a hash of predictable data, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a flood of SYN packets that produce identical hash values, which slows down the hash table lookups. |
| NOTE: this issue has been disputed by third parties. Microsoft Windows XP, 2000, and 2003 allows local users to kill a writable process by using the CreateRemoteThread function with certain arguments on a process that has been opened using the OpenProcess function, possibly involving an invalid address for the start routine. NOTE: followup posts have disputed this issue, saying that if a user already has privileges to write to a process, then other functions could be called or the process could be terminated using PROCESS_TERMINATE |
| mshtml.dll in Microsoft Windows XP, Server 2003, and Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (access violation) by causing mshtml.dll to process button-focus events at the same time that a document is reloading, as seen in Microsoft Office InfoPath 2003 by repeatedly clicking the "Delete" button in a repeating section in a form. NOTE: the normal operation of InfoPath appears to involve a local user without any privilege boundaries, so this might not be a vulnerability in InfoPath. If no realistic scenarios exist for this problem in other products, then perhaps it should be excluded from CVE. |
