CVE-2003-0715
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 · uneditedHeap-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 DCERPC DCOM object activation request packet with modified length fields, a different vulnerability than CVE-2003-0352 (Blaster/Nachi) and CVE-2003-0528.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow in the RPCSS (RPC Subsystem) Service's DCOM interface allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by sending malformed DCERPC DCOM object activation request packets with modified length fields. The vulnerability resides in how the RPCSS Service handles DCOM object activation requests.
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 versions= enterprise= enterprise_64-bit= r2= standard= web= 4.0all 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Identify Windows versionRun 'winver' or check system properties to determine the exact Windows version and build numberAffected if The version is Windows 2000 (any), Windows XP (any), Windows NT 4.0, or Windows Server 2003 (enterprise, enterprise_64-bit, r2, standard, or web)
-
Verify RPCSS service statusOpen Services console (services.msc) and locate 'Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Locator' service, or run 'sc query rpcss' from command lineAffected if The RPCSS service is running (this service handles DCOM object activation)
-
Confirm DCOM is enabledRun 'dcomcnfg' to open Component Services, navigate to Component Services > Computers > My Computer, right-click and select Properties, then check the 'Enable Distributed COM on this computer' checkbox under the Default Properties tabAffected if DCOM is enabled on the target system (required for the vulnerability to be exploitable)
-
Check for MS03-039 security patchOpen Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs, enable 'Show updates' checkbox, and look for 'Security Update for Windows (KB824146)' or 'Q824146' in the installed updates; alternatively, run 'wmic qfe list' or check 'C:\Windows\System32\Hotfix.exe'Affected if The MS03-039 patch (KB824146) is NOT installed on the system
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Windows version (2000/XP/NT4.0/Server2003) with the RPCSS service running, DCOM enabled, and the MS03-039 patch not applied.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the relevant Microsoft security update (MS03-039) to patch the RPCSS Service vulnerability; alternatively, disable DCOM or block RPC/DCOM ports (135, 139, 445, 593) at network perimeters as a compensating control.
Windows 2000 SP4 + MS03-039; Windows XP SP1 or later; Windows Server 2003 SP1 or later; Windows NT 4.0 with appropriate post-SP6a hotfix
- Obtain the security update MS03-039 from Microsoft or your organization's patch management system
- Apply the patch to all affected systems. For Windows 2000, ensure Service Pack 4 is installed first, then apply MS03-039
- After patching, verify the RPCSS service is running properly and no RPC/DCOM-related errors appear in Event Viewer
- Ensure Windows Firewall or a network firewall is blocking TCP ports 135, 139, 445, and UDP ports 135, 137, 138 from untrusted networks as an additional compensating control
- Restart affected systems if the patch installer requires it
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2003-0715 — 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-2003-0715 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