CVE-2007-1512
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in the AfxOleSetEditMenu function in the MFC component in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP2, and Server 2003 Gold and SP1, and Visual Studio .NET 2002 Gold and SP1, and 2003 Gold and SP1 allows user-assisted remote attackers to have an unknown impact (probably crash) via an RTF file with a malformed OLE object, which results in writing two 0x00 characters past the end of szBuffer, aka the "MFC42u.dll Off-by-Two Overflow." NOTE: this issue is due to an incomplete patch (MS07-012) for CVE-2007-0025.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in MFC42u.dll's AfxOleSetEditMenu function allows writing two 0x00 bytes past the end of the szBuffer when parsing malformed OLE objects embedded in RTF files, leading to potential code execution or crash.
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= 2002= 2003CVSS 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.
-
Check if Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 is installedOpen Windows Registry and look under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\VisualStudio\ for subdirectories 7.0 or 7.1, or check Program Files for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 foldersAffected if Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 is present on the system
-
Locate MFC42u.dll on the systemSearch for MFC42u.dll in the Visual Studio installation directory (typically under Common7\IDE\) and system directories (System32)Affected if MFC42u.dll exists in Visual Studio directories or System32
-
Determine the version of MFC42u.dllRight-click the found MFC42u.dll, select Properties, and view the Version tab to see the File Version and Product VersionAffected if The DLL version is older than the patched version released with MS07-012
-
Check if RTF files with embedded OLE objects are being processedReview any custom applications or scripts that use MFC or the AfxOleSetEditMenu function to process RTF files, or examine recent RTF file operations in the systemAffected if Applications process RTF files containing embedded OLE objects
A system is affected if Visual Studio .NET 2002 or 2003 is installed with an unpatched version of MFC42u.dll and that DLL is used to process malformed OLE objects embedded in RTF files.
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 complete MS07-012 patch (or subsequent cumulative updates) and update Visual Studio .NET 2002/2003 installations; avoid opening untrusted RTF files.
- 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-2007-1512 — 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-2007-1512 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