CVE-2007-2522
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 inoweb Console Server in CA Anti-Virus for the Enterprise r8, Threat Manager r8, Anti-Spyware for the Enterprise r8, and Protection Suites r3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long (1) username or (2) password.
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 confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow exists in the inoweb Console Server component of CA security products (Anti-Virus for Enterprise r8, Threat Manager r8, Anti-Spyware for Enterprise r8, and Protection Suites r3). The vulnerability is triggered by sending an overly long username or password during authentication, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges.
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= 8.0= 8.0= 8.0CVSS 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 installed security productCheck system inventory or installed programs for Broadcom Antispyware For The Enterprise, Broadcom Etrust Integrated Threat Management, or Broadcom Etrust PestpatrolAffected if Any of these three Broadcom products is installed
-
Verify product versionCheck the installed version of the identified Broadcom productAffected if Version equals 8.0 exactly
-
Locate inoweb Console Server componentCheck for the inoweb Console Server service or executable in the product installation directoryAffected if inoweb Console Server component is present and installed with the product
-
Confirm service is running and exposedCheck if the inoweb Console Server is listening on a network port (typically TCP ports 8080 or 8443 or similar)Affected if The inoweb Console Server is running and accessible over the network on any port
A user is affected if they have Broadcom Antispyware For The Enterprise, Etrust Integrated Threat Management, or Etrust Pestpatrol version 8.0 installed with the inoweb Console Server component running and network-accessible.
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 vendor patches for the affected CA products immediately. If patches are unavailable, disable or restrict network access to the inoweb Console Server and implement input validation at network perimeter controls.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-2522 — 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-2007-2522 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