CVE-2010-0134
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 · uneditedInteger signedness error in rtfsr.dll in Autonomy KeyView 10.4 and 10.9, as used in multiple IBM, Symantec, and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted \ls keyword in a list override table entry in an RTF file, which triggers a buffer overflow.
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 confidenceInteger signedness error in rtfsr.dll (Autonomy KeyView 10.4/10.9) allows buffer overflow via crafted RTF files containing a malicious \ls keyword in list override table entries, leading to remote code execution.
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= 10.4= 10.9= 10.4= 10.9= 10.4= 10.9CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Locate rtfsr.dll in the KeyView installationSearch the system for rtfsr.dll, typically found in the KeyView installation directory under bin, lib, or a version-specific subfolder. Common paths may include C:\Program Files\Autonomy\KeyView\ or similar.Affected if The file rtfsr.dll exists on the system, indicating KeyView RTF parsing capability is present.
-
Determine the version of rtfsr.dll or KeyViewRight-click rtfsr.dll, select Properties, then go to the Details tab to view the File Version. Alternatively, check the KeyView product version through installed program information or any version file in the KeyView directory.Affected if The version is 10.4.x or 10.9.x, matching the affected versions listed in the CVE.
-
Confirm RTF parsing module is loaded or enabledIf KeyView is integrated into another application, verify that the RTF parsing module (rtfsr.dll) is being loaded. Check application logs, KeyView configuration, or runtime environment for evidence that RTF handling is active.Affected if RTF parsing functionality is enabled or available in the environment.
-
Check if the system processes RTF input from external sourcesReview whether the system or application using KeyView accepts RTF files from users, email attachments, file uploads, or other external input paths that could trigger parsing of untrusted RTF content.Affected if The environment processes RTF files from untrusted sources, enabling delivery of a crafted malicious RTF file.
The environment is affected if KeyView version 10.4 or 10.9 is installed with rtfsr.dll present and RTF parsing is enabled, allowing processing of potentially malicious 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 dataUpdate affected products to patched KeyView versions; validate RTF parsing functionality post-update; restrict RTF file handling from untrusted sources until patched.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0134 — 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-2010-0134 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