Virtual Infrastructure ClientApplication · VMware
CVE-2011-2217
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 · uneditedCertain ActiveX controls in (1) tsgetxu71ex552.dll and (2) tsgetx71ex552.dll in Tom Sawyer GET Extension Factory 5.5.2.237, as used in VI Client (aka VMware Infrastructure Client) 2.0.2 before Build 230598 and 2.5 before Build 204931 in VMware Infrastructure 3, do not properly handle attempted initialization within Internet Explorer, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted HTML document.
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 Tom Sawyer GET Extension Factory ActiveX controls (tsgetxu71ex552.dll and tsgetx71ex552.dll) in VMware Infrastructure Client versions 2.0.2 before Build 230598 and 2.5 before Build 204931 contain a memory corruption vulnerability during initialization in Internet Explorer. Remote attackers can exploit this via crafted HTML documents to achieve arbitrary code execution or cause a denial of service.
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
Virtual Infrastructure ClientApplication
= 2.0.2= 2.5
InfrastructureApplication
= 3= 5.5.2.237CVSS 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 VMware Infrastructure Client versionCheck the VMware Infrastructure Client version through Windows Programs and Features (Add/Remove Programs) or by launching the client and checking About/Help information. Look for version 2.0.2 or 2.5.Affected if The installed version is 2.0.2 or 2.5, and the build number is below 230598 for 2.0.2 or below 204931 for 2.5.
-
Check for vulnerable ActiveX DLL filesSearch the Windows system for the presence of tsgetxu71ex552.dll and tsgetx71ex552.dll files. These are typically located in the VMware client installation directory or Windows system directories.Affected if Either DLL file is present on the system.
-
Verify ActiveX control registration in Internet ExplorerOpen Internet Explorer, go to Tools > Manage Add-ons, and look for the Tom Sawyer GET Extension Factory ActiveX control (typically shown as 'GET Extension Factory' or similar). Alternatively, check registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Code Store Database\DOMStorage or ActiveX controls listing.Affected if The Tom Sawyer GET Extension Factory ActiveX control is listed as installed/enabled in Internet Explorer.
-
Check VMware Infrastructure versionIf the VMware Infrastructure Client is not directly installed, check if the system runs VMware Infrastructure 3 components by examining installed programs or VMware service information.Affected if VMware Infrastructure version 3 is deployed without the corresponding client patches.
A system is affected if VMware Infrastructure Client version 2.0.2 (build below 230598) or version 2.5 (build below 204931) is installed, or if the Tom Sawyer GET Extension Factory ActiveX control (tsgetxu71ex552.dll or tsgetx71ex552.dll) is present and enabled in Internet Explorer.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpdate VMware Infrastructure Client to the patched builds (230598 for 2.0.2 and 204931 for 2.5) or disable the affected ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer settings. Additionally, restrict browsing to untrusted HTML content and implement network segmentation to limit exposure.
VI Client 2.0.2 Build 230598+ or VI Client 2.5 Build 204931+
- Upgrade Virtual Infrastructure Client 2.0.2 to Build 230598 or later
- Upgrade Virtual Infrastructure Client 2.5 to Build 204931 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Virtual Infrastructure Client
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 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 $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-2217 — 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-2011-2217 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