CVE-2007-0084
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 Windows NT Message Compiler (MC) 1.00.5239 on Microsoft Windows XP allows local users to gain privileges via a long MC-filename. NOTE: this issue has been disputed by a reliable third party who states that the compiler is not a privileged program, so privilege boundaries cannot be crossed
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 · low confidenceBuffer overflow in Windows NT Message Compiler (MC) version 1.00.5239 on Windows XP. A local user could potentially exploit a long MC-filename to trigger the overflow. However, this vulnerability has been disputed by a reliable third party who asserts the compiler is not a privileged program, meaning actual privilege escalation may not be possible.
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 data= 1.00.5239CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:S/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.
-
Locate the Message Compiler (MC.exe) on the systemSearch for MC.exe in typical locations: %ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Visual Studio\*, %ProgramFiles%\Windows Kits\*, and system directories. Use 'where /r C:\ mc.exe' from an elevated command prompt.Affected if MC.exe is found on the system
-
Get the version of MC.exeRight-click MC.exe, select Properties, then go to the Details tab to view the File Version. Alternatively, use 'mc.exe -?' or check version info via PowerShell: (Get-Item 'path\to\mc.exe').VersionInfoAffected if File version equals 1.00.5239 exactly
-
Confirm the product name matches Microsoft Message CompilerIn the Properties Details tab, verify the Product Name field shows 'Microsoft Message Compiler' or similar Microsoft compiler product identification.Affected if Product is confirmed as Microsoft Message Compiler version 1.00.5239
-
Identify if MC.exe is in a privileged or system directoryCheck the full path of MC.exe - if it resides in %SystemRoot%\System32 or other protected system directories, it may run with elevated privileges.Affected if MC.exe version 1.00.5239 is located in a privileged system directory
A system is affected only if Microsoft Message Compiler (MC.exe) version 1.00.5239 is present on the machine; this is a highly specific version check.
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 dataGiven the disputed nature of this vulnerability, verify the actual risk in your environment. If confirmed, restrict access to the MC compiler tool to trusted developers only and ensure standard least-privilege user practices are followed.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-0084 — 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-2007-0084 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