CVE-2003-0470
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedBuffer overflow in the "RuFSI Utility Class" ActiveX control (aka "RuFSI Registry Information Class"), as used for the Symantec Security Check service, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long argument to CompareVersionStrings.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceBuffer overflow in the RuFSI Utility Class (RuFSI Registry Information Class) ActiveX control used by Symantec Security Check service allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long argument to the CompareVersionStrings method.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if Symantec Security Check is installedLook for Symantec Security Check in Add/Remove Programs (Windows) or search for related files and directories on the systemAffected if Symantec Security Check is present on the system
-
Locate the RuFSI ActiveX control DLL/OCX fileSearch the system for files named RuFSI or similar patterns, or check common ActiveX deployment directoriesAffected if A RuFSI-related DLL or OCX file is found on the system
-
Check for RuFSI ActiveX control registration in the Windows RegistrySearch the Windows registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID for entries containing 'RuFSI' or 'Registry' related to the control, or examine HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\ModuleUsage for the control's CLSIDAffected if The RuFSI ActiveX control CLSID is registered in the system registry
-
Verify if the control is marked Safe for ScriptingCheck the registry for the component's CLSID under the Implemented Categories section, or inspect Internet Explorer security settings for the control's ActiveX initialization behaviorAffected if The RuFSI control is marked as safe for scripting or initialization in the registry
-
Test if Internet Explorer can instantiate the controlUsing a script-enabled webpage or browser, attempt to create the object (for example: new ActiveXObject('RuFSI.RegistryInformation') or similar), or use the OLE/COM Object Viewer to enumerate available objectsAffected if Internet Explorer or another browser can successfully instantiate the RuFSI ActiveX control
A system is affected if it has Symantec Security Check installed and the RuFSI ActiveX control is registered and loadable by browsers, particularly if the control is marked as safe for scripting.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataDisable or remove the vulnerable RuFSI ActiveX control from affected systems, or implement network-level restrictions to prevent browsers from loading this ActiveX component.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2003-0470 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2003-0470 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data