CVE-2011-5089
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow in the Security Login ActiveX controls in ICONICS GENESIS32 8.05, 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2 and BizViz 8.05, 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a long password.
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 · moderate confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the Security Login ActiveX control in ICONICS GENESIS32 and BizViz allows remote attackers to crash the application or potentially execute arbitrary code by submitting an overly long password string to the ActiveX control.
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= 8.05= 9.0= 9.1= 9.2= 8.05= 9.0= 9.1= 9.2CVSS 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 ICONICS productsCheck system for GENESIS32 or BizViz installation directories (typically under C:\Program Files\ICONICS\) or look for ICONICS-related entries in Windows Registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ICONICS or HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\ICONICSAffected if Either GENESIS32 or BizViz is found on the system
-
Determine installed versionCheck the version of the installed ICONICS product by examining the main executable (e.g., GENESIS32.exe, BizViz.exe) or check version info in the installation directory. Compare against affected versions 8.05, 9.0, 9.1, or 9.2Affected if The installed version is 8.05, 9.0, 9.1, or 9.2
-
Locate Security Login ActiveX controlSearch for the Security Login ActiveX control file (.ocx) in the installation directory, typically named SecLogin.ocx or similar, and check for its presence in Windows Registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID for ActiveX component registrationAffected if The SecLogin.ocx or equivalent Security Login ActiveX control file exists on the system
-
Verify ActiveX control is enabledCheck if the ActiveX control is registered and enabled in Internet Explorer settings, or verify the control can be instantiated via COM (check HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\SecLogin or similar registry entries for the ActiveX CLSID)Affected if The Security Login ActiveX control is registered and can be instantiated
The system is affected if ICONICS GENESIS32 or BizViz versions 8.05, 9.0, 9.1, or 9.2 are installed with the Security Login ActiveX control present and accessible.
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 patches for GENESIS32/BizViz to address the buffer overflow in the Security Login ActiveX control. Consider disabling ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer or implementing network segmentation to limit exposure to remote attackers.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5089 — 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-2011-5089 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