CVE-2010-5221
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 STDU Explorer 1.0.201 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse dwmapi.dll file in the current working directory. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
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 confidenceSTDU Explorer 1.0.201 contains an untrusted search path (DLL preloading) vulnerability. The application loads the dwmapi.dll library from the current working directory without specifying a full path, allowing local attackers to place a malicious trojaned DLL in a directory from which the victim launches the application. When executed, the malicious DLL runs with the privileges of the vulnerable application, enabling local privilege escalation.
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= 1.0.201CVSS 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.
-
Locate STDU Explorer executableSearch for stdu_explorer.exe or similar executable name in common installation directories (e.g., Program Files, Program Files (x86)) and user directoriesAffected if The executable stdu_explorer.exe exists on the system
-
Verify the installed versionRight-click the executable, select Properties, and check the Details tab for the File Version. Alternatively, run: "stdu_explorer.exe" /? or check Add/Remove Programs for version informationAffected if File version is exactly 1.0.201
-
Confirm DLL loading behaviorUse a process monitor tool (e.g., Process Monitor from Sysinternals) to trace DLL loading when launching STDU Explorer. Look for attempts to load dwmapi.dll from the current working directory rather than system pathsAffected if The application attempts to load dwmapi.dll from the current working directory (CWD) without a full path
-
Check for malicious DLL in common untrusted locationsInspect directories where you frequently download or extract files (e.g., Downloads folder, Desktop, extracted ZIP archives) for a file named dwmapi.dll. Also check the STDU Explorer installation directoryAffected if A dwmapi.dll file exists in any directory other than the Windows system directory (System32)
The system is affected if STDU Explorer version 1.0.201 is installed and the application can be launched from a directory containing a malicious dwmapi.dll, allowing DLL preloading and local privilege escalation.
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 dataAvoid launching STDU Explorer from untrusted directories (e.g., downloaded archives, shared folders). Run the application from a trusted installation directory using absolute paths. Consider removing or renaming the vulnerable executable if no patch is available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5221 — 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-2010-5221 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