CVE-2007-3695
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 LICRCMD.EXE in CA ERwin Process Modeler (formerly AllFusion Process Modeler) 7.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long filename. NOTE: the researcher does not suggest any circumstances in which the filename would come from an untrusted source, and therefore perhaps the issue does not cross privilege boundaries and should not be included in CVE.
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 · moderate confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in LICRCMD.EXE of CA ERwin Process Modeler 7.1 allows arbitrary code execution via an overly long filename. However, the original researcher noted there is no evidence the filename originates from an untrusted source, suggesting the attack surface may be limited.
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= 7.1CVSS 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 ERwin Process Modeler installationLocate the ERwin Process Modeler application on the system - typical installation directories may include Program Files/CA or Program Files/Broadcom. Check for the presence of the ERwin application folder.Affected if The product is not installed, this CVE does not apply.
-
Identify installed versionRight-click the ERwin application shortcut or executable, select Properties, and check the Version tab. Alternatively, open ERwin and navigate to Help > About to view the exact version number.Affected if The installed version is exactly 7.1 - other versions are not affected by this specific CVE.
-
Locate LICRCMD.EXESearch for the file LICRCMD.EXE within the ERwin installation directory. Use Windows Explorer search or run: dir /s C:\*LICRCMD.EXE (adjust drive letter as needed).Affected if If LICRCMD.EXE is present in the ERwin 7.1 installation folder, the vulnerable component exists on the system.
-
Assess file source exposureDetermine whether filenames processed by LICRCMD.EXE can originate from untrusted or external sources. Review any workflows where ERwin imports, opens, or processes files from network shares, email attachments, or user uploads.Affected if The original researcher noted limited evidence that filenames originate from untrusted sources - if all filenames come from trusted internal sources, the practical exploit risk is reduced.
A system is affected only if CA ERwin Process Modeler version 7.1 is installed, LICRCMD.EXE is present, and that executable processes filenames from untrusted or external sources.
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 dataContact CA vendor support to confirm if a patch exists; if unavailable, implement compensating controls such as restricting file access and input validation on any user-supplied filenames.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-3695 — 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-2007-3695 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