CVE-2012-3797
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 · uneditedPro-face WinGP PC Runtime 3.1.00 and earlier, and ProServr.exe in Pro-face Pro-Server EX 1.30.000 and earlier, does not properly check packet sizes before reusing packet memory buffers, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a short crafted packet with a certain opcode.
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 Pro-face WinGP PC Runtime and Pro-Server EX software fail to validate packet sizes before reusing packet memory buffers, allowing heap memory corruption when processing short crafted packets with specific opcodes. This is a classic buffer overflow vulnerability in the packet handling logic.
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<= 1.30.000= 1.21.000= 1.23.000= 1.24.200<= 3.1.00CVSS 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 Pro-Server EX installation locationSearch for Pro-Server EX executable files on the system, typically found in Program Files/Pro-face directory or common HMI software installation paths. Check file properties to locate the executable and its version information.Affected if Pro-Server EX version is 1.21.000, 1.23.000, 1.24.200, or any version <= 1.30.000
-
Identify WinGP PC Runtime installation locationSearch for WinGP or Wingp executable files on the system, typically in Program Files/Pro-face or HMI application directories. Check file properties to determine the version.Affected if WinGP PC Runtime version is <= 3.1.00
-
Verify running processesCheck system running processes for Pro-Server EX service or WinGP runtime executable. Use task manager or command: tasklist /FI "IMAGENAME eq proserver.exe" or similar process name. Also check for any HMI-related services.Affected if Pro-Server EX or WinGP PC Runtime processes are actively running and listening on network ports
-
Check network exposureDetermine if the affected software is bound to network interfaces accessible from untrusted networks. Use netstat command to identify listening ports associated with Pro-Server EX or WinGP processes.Affected if The software is listening on network ports accessible from untrusted networks
The environment is affected if Pro-Server EX version is <= 1.30.000 (specifically 1.21.000, 1.23.000, 1.24.200) or WinGP PC Runtime version is <= 3.1.00, and either software is running and network-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 dataIsolate HMI systems from untrusted networks using firewalls and network segmentation; apply vendor patches if available; implement proper input validation on packet size fields before buffer operations.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $8,256.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-3797 — 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-2012-3797 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