CVE-2010-5271
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 Altova MapForce 2011 Enterprise Edition SP1 allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse dwmapi.dll file in the current working directory, as demonstrated by a directory that contains a .mfd file. 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 · high confidenceAltova MapForce 2011 Enterprise Edition SP1 suffers from an untrusted search path (DLL hijacking) vulnerability. When the application opens a .mfd file from a directory containing a malicious dwmapi.dll, it loads the trojaned DLL from the current working directory instead of the system path, executing arbitrary code with the application'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= 2011CVSS 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.
-
Verify Altova MapForce 2011 is installedCheck for MapForce installation in Program Files (e.g., C:\Program Files\Altova\MapForce2011) or review installed programs in Control Panel > Programs and FeaturesAffected if Altova MapForce 2011 (any edition) is installed on the system
-
Confirm the exact version numberRight-click the MapForce executable (MapForce.exe), select Properties, and check the File Version field under the Details tabAffected if The version is 2011 (any build) - all versions within this release year are affected
-
Check for .mfd file associationLook for .mfd file type association in Windows Explorer or check MapForce file types in the applicationAffected if The .mfd file type is associated with MapForce, enabling the vulnerable file-opening behavior
-
Test DLL search path behaviorCreate a test directory with a dummy dwmapi.dll, place a test .mfd file in that directory, and attempt to open it while monitoring DLL loading with Process Monitor or similar toolAffected if The application loads dwmapi.dll from the current working directory rather than only from system directories (indicating an untrusted search path)
The system is affected if Altova MapForce 2011 is installed AND the application loads DLLs from the current working directory when opening .mfd files, allowing potential DLL hijacking from untrusted directories.
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 dataUsers should avoid opening .mfd files from untrusted or shared directories. The vendor should release a patch to remove the current working directory from the DLL search path (using SetDllDirectory or safe DLL loading APIs).
- 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-2010-5271 — 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-2010-5271 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