CVE-2010-5249
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 Sophos Free Encryption 2.40.1.1 and Sophos SafeGuard PrivateCrypto 2.40.1.2 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse pcrypt0406.dll file in the current working directory, as demonstrated by a directory that contains a .uti file. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely 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 confidenceDLL hijacking vulnerability in Sophos Free Encryption 2.40.1.1 and SafeGuard PrivateCrypto 2.40.1.2 allows privilege escalation via malicious pcrypt0406.dll placed in current working directory. When the application opens a .uti file from a directory containing the malicious DLL, it loads the Trojan horse DLL with the user's 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 data= 2.40.1.1= 2.40.1.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Sophos encryption productCheck Programs and Features or run 'wmic product get name,version' to find Sophos Free Encryption or SafeGuard PrivateCrypto installationsAffected if Either product is installed with version 2.40.1.1 or 2.40.1.2 respectively
-
Verify the exact installed versionLocate the application executable (typically in Program Files) and check its file properties, or use 'wmic product where "name like 'Sophos%'" get version'Affected if Version matches exactly 2.40.1.1 for Free Encryption or 2.40.1.2 for PrivateCrypto
-
Check for .uti file associationSearch registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT for .uti extension and verify it is associated with the Sophos encryption applicationAffected if The application is registered to handle .uti files, enabling the vulnerable loading mechanism
-
Verify DLL search path behaviorTest whether the application loads DLLs from the current working directory by attempting to open a .uti file from a directory containing a test DLL (pcrypt0406.dll)Affected if The application loads a DLL from the same directory as the .uti file being opened, allowing DLL hijacking
The environment is affected if Sophos Free Encryption 2.40.1.1 or SafeGuard PrivateCrypto 2.40.1.2 is installed and configured to handle .uti files, enabling the DLL hijacking vector.
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 running the application from untrusted or user-controlled directories. Consider migrating to a supported encryption solution as this is a 2010 vulnerability in likely end-of-life software with no vendor patch.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,624.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5249 — 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-2010-5249 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