CVE-2008-0378
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 SocksCap 2.40-051231 and earlier, when "Resolve all names remotely" is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long hostname.
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 SocksCap when handling long hostnames with 'Resolve all names remotely' enabled, allowing remote attackers to crash the application or potentially execute arbitrary code via overly long hostname strings.
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<= 2.40_051231CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 Nec SocksCap is installedLook for the SocksCap application on the system, typically in Program Files or a custom installation directory. Check for files named scapp.exe, sockscap.exe, or similar SocksCap executables.Affected if Nec SocksCap executable is found on the system
-
Identify the installed SocksCap versionRight-click the SocksCap executable, select Properties, and check the version information on the Details tab. Alternatively, run the application and look for version information in the About or Help menu.Affected if The version number displayed is 2.40_051231 or lower, or if the version cannot be determined but the product is present
-
Locate the SocksCap configuration fileSearch for configuration files in the SocksCap installation directory or user profile. Common file names include sockscap.ini, scapp.ini, or settings files with .ini, .cfg, or .xml extensions.Affected if A SocksCap configuration file exists on the system
-
Check if 'Resolve all names remotely' is enabledOpen the SocksCap application, navigate to the proxy or SOCKS server configuration settings, and look for the 'Resolve all names remotely' option (sometimes labeled as 'Resolve names remotely' or similar). If the configuration file was found, open it in a text editor and search for keywords like 'Resolve', 'Remote', 'Namelookup', or 'R' in the proxy settings section.Affected if The 'Resolve all names remotely' feature is turned ON or enabled in the application settings or configuration file
The system is affected if Nec SocksCap version 2.40_051231 or lower is installed AND the 'Resolve all names remotely' feature is enabled, as both conditions are required for the buffer overflow to be exploitable.
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 dataUpdate SocksCap to a patched version if available, or disable the 'Resolve all names remotely' feature if feasible; consider migrating to maintained proxy client alternatives.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-0378 — 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-2008-0378 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