| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Buffer overflow in the TCP/IP Protocol driver in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors related to IP source routing. |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the Server Service (SRV.SYS driver) in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, Server 2003 up to SP1, and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted first-class Mailslot messages that triggers memory corruption and bypasses size restrictions on second-class Mailslot messages. |
| Buffer overflow in the Remote Access Connection Manager service (RASMAN) service in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote unauthenticated or authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain crafted "RPC related requests," that lead to registry corruption and stack corruption, aka the "RASMAN Registry Corruption Vulnerability." |
| Buffer overflow in the Routing and Remote Access service (RRAS) in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote unauthenticated or authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code via certain crafted "RPC related requests," aka the "RRAS Memory Corruption Vulnerability." |
| The Indexing Service for Microsoft Windows XP and Server 2003 does not properly validate the length of a message, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a buffer overflow attack. |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in WINSRV.DLL in the Client Server Runtime System (CSRSS) process of Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP SP1 and SP2, and Windows Server 2003 allows local users to gain privileges via a specially-designed application that provides console window information with a long FaceName value. |
| Multiple TCP implementations with Protection Against Wrapped Sequence Numbers (PAWS) with the timestamps option enabled allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connection loss) via a spoofed packet with a large timer value, which causes the host to discard later packets because they appear to be too old. |
| Unknown vulnerability in the H.323 protocol implementation in Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. |
| The document processing application used by the Windows Shell in Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by modifying the CLSID stored in a file so that it is processed by HTML Application Host (MSHTA), as demonstrated using a Microsoft Word document. |
| 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." |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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." |
| 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 local and remote desktop login screens in Microsoft Windows XP before SP2 and 2003 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) by repeatedly using the WinKey+"U" key combination, which causes multiple copies of Windows Utility Manager to be loaded more quickly than they can be closed when the copies detect that another instance is running. |
| Memory leak in Microsoft Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory exhaustion) by repeatedly creating and deleting directories using a non-standard tool such as smbmount. |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) interface in the RPCSS Service allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a malformed RPC request with a long filename parameter, a different vulnerability than CVE-2003-0352 (Blaster/Nachi) and CVE-2003-0715. |
| Multiple TCP/IP and ICMP implementations allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reset TCP connections) via spoofed ICMP error messages, aka the "blind connection-reset attack." NOTE: CVE-2004-0790, CVE-2004-0791, and CVE-2004-1060 have been SPLIT based on different attacks; CVE-2005-0065, CVE-2005-0066, CVE-2005-0067, and CVE-2005-0068 are related identifiers that are SPLIT based on the underlying vulnerability. While CVE normally SPLITs based on vulnerability, the attack-based identifiers exist due to the variety and number of affected implementations and solutions that address the attacks instead of the underlying vulnerabilities. |
