CVE-2011-0758
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 · uneditedThe eCS component (ECSQdmn.exe) in CA ETrust Secure Content Manager 8.0 and CA Gateway Security 8.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and execute arbitrary code via a crafted request to port 1882, involving an incorrect integer calculation and a heap-based buffer overflow.
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 confidenceA heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the eCS daemon (ECSQdmn.exe) of CA ETrust Secure Content Manager 8.0 and CA Gateway Security 8.1. The vulnerability stems from an incorrect integer calculation that leads to insufficient memory allocation, allowing crafted requests to port 1882 to overflow the heap buffer. This enables remote attackers to crash the service or potentially execute arbitrary code.
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= 8.0= 8.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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 CA product versionCheck the installed version of CA ETrust Secure Content Manager or CA Gateway Security via the Windows registry (HKLM\SOFTWARE\ComputerAssociates\ETrustSecureContentManager or similar) or the Add/Remove Programs list in Control PanelAffected if The installed version is exactly 8.0 for ETrust Secure Content Manager or exactly 8.1 for Gateway Security
-
Locate the eCS daemon executableSearch for ECSQdmn.exe in the CA installation directory (typically under C:\Program Files\CA\ or C:\CA\) or check running processes using Task Manager or tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq ECSQdmn.exe"Affected if ECSQdmn.exe is found running on the system
-
Verify port 1882 is listeningRun netstat -ano | findstr :1882 or use PowerShell Get-NetTCPConnection -LocalPort 1882 to check if the eCS daemon is bound and listening on port 1882Affected if Port 1882 shows as LISTENING and associated with the ECSQdmn.exe process
-
Check service statusRun sc query ECSQdmn or check the CA eCS daemon service status in Windows Services (services.msc) to confirm the service is runningAffected if The eCS daemon service is in a RUNNING state and listening on port 1882
The environment is affected if CA ETrust Secure Content Manager 8.0 or CA Gateway Security 8.1 is installed with the eCS daemon (ECSQdmn.exe) running and listening on port 1882.
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 vendor-supplied patches for CA ETrust Secure Content Manager 8.0 and CA Gateway Security 8.1. If no patch is available, consider network segmentation to restrict access to port 1882 and implement input validation on the affected service.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0758 — 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-2011-0758 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