CVE-2010-1895
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 · uneditedThe Windows kernel-mode drivers in win32k.sys in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3, and Windows Server 2003 SP2, do not properly perform memory allocation before copying user-mode data to kernel mode, which allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Win32k Pool Overflow Vulnerability."
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 confidenceThis is a privilege escalation vulnerability in the Windows kernel (win32k.sys) where the driver fails to properly allocate memory before copying user-mode data into kernel space, leading to a pool overflow condition. Local attackers can exploit this to execute arbitrary code with kernel-level 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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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 Windows versionRun 'winver' from the command line or check System Properties to see the exact Windows version and Service Pack levelAffected if The system is running Windows XP (any Service Pack) or Windows Server 2003 (any Service Pack)
-
Confirm win32k.sys presenceVerify that the file C:\Windows\System32\win32k.sys exists on the systemAffected if The win32k.sys driver file is present (standard on all affected Windows versions)
-
Check for existing exploitsReview system logs and security event logs for signs of local privilege escalation attempts, or use malware/antivirus detection tools to scan for known exploit payloads targeting this CVEAffected if Exploit activity or malware related to CVE-2010-1895 is detected on the system
A system is affected if it runs Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, as these versions contain the vulnerable win32k.sys driver that allows local privilege escalation to kernel level.
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 Microsoft security update (MS10-053) to affected systems running Windows XP SP2/SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2, or upgrade to a supported Windows version that no longer contains this vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1895 — 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-2010-1895 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