CVE-2007-0938
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 · uneditedMicrosoft Content Management Server (MCMS) 2001 SP1 and 2002 SP2 does not properly handle certain characters in a crafted HTTP GET request, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, aka the "CMS Memory Corruption Vulnerability."
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 confidenceMicrosoft Content Management Server (MCMS) 2001 SP1 and 2002 SP2 contains a memory corruption vulnerability where certain characters in a crafted HTTP GET request are not properly handled, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code.
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= 2001= 2002CVSS 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.
-
Confirm MCMS installationCheck Windows Programs and Features (or Add/Remove Programs) for Microsoft Content Management Server entry, or look for MCMS installation directories under Program Files or inetpubAffected if Microsoft Content Management Server 2001 or 2002 is listed as installed
-
Identify MCMS version and service packCheck registry key HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\ContentManagementServer for Version and SPLevel values, or right-click the MCMS Service Manager icon in system tray and select AboutAffected if Version is 2001 with SP1, or version is 2002 with SP2 (the exact service pack levels specified in affected products)
-
Determine if web publishing is enabledOpen IIS Manager, expand the server node, and look for MCMS Site Builder or Authoring Web Site entries under Sites or ApplicationsAffected if MCMS web applications or sites are published and accessible via HTTP/HTTPS
If MCMS 2001 SP1 or MCMS 2002 SP2 is installed with web publishing enabled, the system is vulnerable to remote code execution via crafted HTTP GET requests.
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 dataApply the relevant Microsoft security patches for this vulnerability; if patches are unavailable due to the age of the product, consider network-level filtering, removing affected systems from production, or migrating to a supported CMS platform.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-0938 — 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-2007-0938 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