CVE-2005-3375
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 · uneditedMultiple interpretation error in Ikarus demo version allows remote attackers to bypass virus scanning via a file such as BAT, HTML, and EML with an "MZ" magic byte sequence which is normally associated with EXE, which causes the file to be treated as a safe type that could still be executed as a dangerous file type by applications on the end system, as demonstrated by a "triple headed" program that contains EXE, EML, and HTML content, aka the "magic byte bug."
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 confidenceThe Ikarus anti-virus demo version suffers from a magic byte interpretation error where files containing the 'MZ' header (normally associated with EXE executables) embedded within BAT, HTML, or EML file types are misclassified as safe. This 'triple headed' attack allows malicious code to bypass virus scanning while still being executable by end-user applications.
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
- High
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Verify Ikarus Antivirus installationCheck for Ikarus antivirus software on the system by searching for Ikarus-related processes, services, or installed programs. Common paths include C:\Program Files\Ikarus or registry entries under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall.Affected if Ikarus Antivirus is found installed on the system.
-
Identify the installed versionLocate the Ikarus executable (typically named something like ikarus.exe or within an Ikarus folder) and check its file properties for version information. Alternatively, run 'reg query HKLM\SOFTWARE\Ikarus' or check the program's About/Help section for version details.Affected if Any version of Ikarus Antivirus is installed, as all versions are affected per the CVE.
-
Confirm demo/evaluation statusReview the license information, program metadata, or startup banner to determine if the installed copy is a demo, trial, or evaluation version rather than a fully licensed production copy.Affected if The installed software is a demo, trial, or evaluation version of Ikarus Antivirus.
A system is affected if it has any version of Ikarus Antivirus installed, particularly if it is a demo or evaluation version used in a production environment.
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 dataOrganizations should not deploy demo or evaluation versions of security software in production environments. Replace vulnerable AV software with updated versions from vendors that properly inspect file content beyond magic bytes, and implement defense-in-depth controls such as application whitelisting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-3375 — 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-2005-3375 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