CVE-2011-0027
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 · uneditedMicrosoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8 SP1 and SP2, and Windows Data Access Components (WDAC) 6.0, does not properly validate memory allocation for internal data structures, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, possibly via a large CacheSize property that triggers an integer wrap and a buffer overflow, aka "ADO Record Memory Vulnerability." NOTE: this might be a duplicate of CVE-2010-1117 or CVE-2010-1118.
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 confidenceMemory validation vulnerability in Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8 SP1/SP2 and Windows Data Access Components (WDAC) 6.0 allows remote code execution. The flaw involves improper validation of memory allocation for internal data structures, where a large CacheSize property triggers an integer wraparound leading to a buffer overflow.
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= 2.8= 6.0CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/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 MDAC versionCheck the registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DataAccess for the Version value, or check the file version of msdadc.dll in the system32 folderAffected if The version starts with 2.8 (such as 2.8.xxxx) indicating MDAC 2.8 is installed
-
Identify installed WDAC versionCheck the registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\Windows Data Access Components\Version, or check the file version of msdadc.dll or msdasql.dll in the system32 folderAffected if The version starts with 6.0 indicating WDAC 6.0 is installed
-
Verify vulnerable DLL presenceLocate msdadc.dll or msdasql.dll on the system and check its file version property. These DLLs contain the vulnerable code that processes the CacheSize propertyAffected if The DLL exists and its version matches MDAC 2.8 or WDAC 6.0 as described above
-
Check for applications using ODBC data sourcesReview the system for applications that connect to ODBC data sources, particularly those that may set the CacheSize property on ODBC driver connections. Check ODBC Data Source Administrator (odbcad32.exe) for configured DSNsAffected if ODBC data sources are configured and in use, as the vulnerability triggers when an application sets a large CacheSize value
The system is affected if it has MDAC 2.8 SP1/SP2 or WDAC 6.0 installed and runs applications that utilize ODBC connections where the CacheSize property can be set to a large value.
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 Microsoft security updates for MDAC/WDAC. Until patching is possible, consider network-level controls to limit exposure to untrusted data sources that could trigger the vulnerability, or disable the affected component if not required.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0027 — 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-2011-0027 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