CVE-2012-2271
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 InitLicenKeys function in a certain ActiveX control in SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll in SkinCrafter 3.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a long string in the first argument (aka the reg_name argument).
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in the InitLicenKeys function of the SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll ActiveX control in SkinCrafter 3.0. By supplying an excessively long string to the reg_name parameter, attackers can overflow the buffer and execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the affected application.
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= 3.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Locate SkinCrafter installationSearch for SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll on the system using file search or command: dir /s C:\SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll (adjust drive as needed)Affected if The DLL file exists on the system, indicating SkinCrafter is installed
-
Verify SkinCrafter versionCheck the version of the installed SkinCrafter software by reviewing any installed program details, or right-click the SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll file, select Properties, and view the Version tabAffected if The installed version is 3.0 (exact match to affected version)
-
Confirm ActiveX control registrationCheck if the ActiveX control is registered by searching the Windows Registry for entries containing 'SkinCrafter3_vs2005' under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID or using reg query commandAffected if The ActiveX control CLSID is registered in the Windows Registry
-
Determine if vulnerable code path is reachableReview application logs or documentation to determine if the InitLicenKeys function is invoked with user-supplied reg_name parameter in your environmentAffected if The InitLicenKeys function is called with external input without proper length validation
-
Check for exploitation indicatorsMonitor application or system event logs for crash reports, unexpected process behavior, or security events related to SkinCrafterAffected if Crashes or anomalous behavior are logged involving SkinCrafter components
A user is affected if SkinCrafter 3.0 is installed with the SkinCrafter3_vs2005.dll ActiveX control present and the InitLicenKeys function can be called with user-controlled input.
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 dataUpdate SkinCrafter to the latest version that addresses this vulnerability, or disable/remove the vulnerable ActiveX control if updates are unavailable. Implement network-level filtering to block exploitation attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2271 — 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-2012-2271 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