CVE-2011-1968
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 Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) implementation in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Windows Server 2003 SP2 does not properly process packets in memory, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reboot) by sending crafted RDP packets triggering access to an object that (1) was not properly initialized or (2) is deleted, as exploited in the wild in 2011, aka "Remote Desktop Protocol Vulnerability."
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 confidenceThe Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) implementation in Windows XP SP2/SP3 and Windows Server 2003 SP2 contains a memory corruption vulnerability where crafted RDP packets trigger access to improperly initialized or deleted objects in memory, causing a denial of service via system reboot.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 the Windows versionRun 'winver' or check system properties, or use 'systeminfo | findstr /B /C:"OS Name" /C:"OS Version"'Affected if OS is Windows XP (any Service Pack) or Windows Server 2003 (any version)
-
Verify if RDP is enabledCheck the registry key HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Terminal Server\fDenyTSConnections - if value is 0, RDP is enabled; or open Services.msc and verify Terminal Services or Remote Desktop Services is runningAffected if RDP is enabled and the service is running (fDenyTSConnections value is 0)
-
Confirm whether security update MS11-065 is installedRun 'wmic qfe list' and look for KB2570222, or check Add/Remove Programs to view installed updatesAffected if Security update MS11-065 (KB2570222) is NOT installed on the system
A system is affected if it runs Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, has RDP enabled, and is missing the MS11-065 (KB2570222) security update.
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 update MS11-065 to affected systems; if RDP is not required, disable it via system settings or network access controls.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1968 — 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-2011-1968 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