CVE-2010-3159
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 · uneditedUntrusted search path vulnerability in Explzh 5.67 and earlier allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse executable file in the current working directory.
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 confidenceUntrusted search path vulnerability in Explzh 5.67 and earlier allows the application to load executable files from the current working directory instead of using absolute paths, enabling local attackers to place Trojan horse executables that execute with the privileges of the user running Explzh.
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<= 5.67CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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.
-
Check installed Explzh versionLocate the Explzh executable (typically in Program Files) and view its version properties, or run 'explzh.exe /?' to display version informationAffected if The version is 5.67 or earlier
-
Identify directories from which Explzh is launchedCheck the shortcut locations or registry entries for Explzh to determine common launch directoriesAffected if Explzh is launched from user-writable directories like Downloads, Desktop, or shared network folders
-
Audit write permissions on launch directoriesRight-click on the directory from which you launch Explzh, go to Properties > Security, and check which users have Write permissionAffected if Users other than the owner have Write permission to the launch directory
-
Scan for suspicious executables in launch directoriesList all .exe and .dll files in directories where Explzh is commonly launched using 'dir /b *.exe' in those directoriesAffected if There are unexpected executable files present in the launch directory
You are affected if your installed Explzh version is 5.67 or earlier AND you launch the application from a directory where untrusted users can write files or place executable content.
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 dataUpgrade to a newer version of Explzh if available; otherwise, run the application from a directory where untrusted users cannot write files, or restrict write permissions on directories from which the application may be launched.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3159 — 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-2010-3159 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