CVE-2007-3695 (GCVE-0-2007-3695)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2007-07-11 22:00
Modified
2024-08-07 14:28
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
CWE
- n/a
Summary
Buffer overflow in LICRCMD.EXE in CA ERwin Process Modeler (formerly AllFusion Process Modeler) 7.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long filename. NOTE: the researcher does not suggest any circumstances in which the filename would come from an untrusted source, and therefore perhaps the issue does not cross privilege boundaries and should not be included in CVE.
References
| URL | Tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-07T14:28:52.192Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "http://www.eleytt.com/advisories/eleytt_ALLFUSIONLICRCMD.pdf"
},
{
"name": "24817",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"x_refsource_BID",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/24817"
},
{
"name": "39597",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"x_refsource_OSVDB",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "http://osvdb.org/39597"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "n/a",
"vendor": "n/a",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "n/a"
}
]
}
],
"datePublic": "2007-07-09T00:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Buffer overflow in LICRCMD.EXE in CA ERwin Process Modeler (formerly AllFusion Process Modeler) 7.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long filename. NOTE: the researcher does not suggest any circumstances in which the filename would come from an untrusted source, and therefore perhaps the issue does not cross privilege boundaries and should not be included in CVE."
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"description": "n/a",
"lang": "en",
"type": "text"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2008-11-15T10:00:00.000Z",
"orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
"shortName": "mitre"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "http://www.eleytt.com/advisories/eleytt_ALLFUSIONLICRCMD.pdf"
},
{
"name": "24817",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"x_refsource_BID"
],
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/24817"
},
{
"name": "39597",
"tags": [
"vdb-entry",
"x_refsource_OSVDB"
],
"url": "http://osvdb.org/39597"
}
],
"x_legacyV4Record": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2007-3695",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "n/a",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "n/a"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "n/a"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Buffer overflow in LICRCMD.EXE in CA ERwin Process Modeler (formerly AllFusion Process Modeler) 7.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long filename. NOTE: the researcher does not suggest any circumstances in which the filename would come from an untrusted source, and therefore perhaps the issue does not cross privilege boundaries and should not be included in CVE."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "n/a"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "http://www.eleytt.com/advisories/eleytt_ALLFUSIONLICRCMD.pdf",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "http://www.eleytt.com/advisories/eleytt_ALLFUSIONLICRCMD.pdf"
},
{
"name": "24817",
"refsource": "BID",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/24817"
},
{
"name": "39597",
"refsource": "OSVDB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/39597"
}
]
}
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
"assignerShortName": "mitre",
"cveId": "CVE-2007-3695",
"datePublished": "2007-07-11T22:00:00.000Z",
"dateReserved": "2007-07-11T00:00:00.000Z",
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-07T14:28:52.192Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…