CVE-2013-1296
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 ActiveX control in mstscax.dll in Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection Client 6.1 and 7.0 does not properly handle objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a web page that triggers access to a deleted object, and allows remote RDP servers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors that trigger access to a deleted object, aka "RDP ActiveX Control Remote Code Execution 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 confidenceA use-after-free vulnerability in the Remote Desktop ActiveX control (mstscax.dll) in Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection Client 6.1 and 7.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by triggering access to a deleted object, either via a malicious web page or through unspecified vectors from remote RDP servers.
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= 6.1= 7.0CVSS 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
- 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 Remote Desktop Connection client versionOpen Control Panel > Programs and Features, or run 'msinfo32' and look for 'Remote Desktop Connection' or 'Terminal Services Client' entry under Software Environment > Programs. Alternatively, check the file version of mstscax.dll (typically in C:\Windows\System32\ or C:\Windows\SysWOW64\ depending on architecture) by right-clicking the file, selecting Properties, and viewing the Details tab.Affected if The displayed version equals 6.1 or exactly 7.0 (these are the only affected versions listed).
-
Verify mstscax.dll file versionLocate mstscax.dll on the system (commonly in C:\Windows\System32\ for 64-bit Windows or C:\Windows\SysWOW64\ for 32-bit components on 64-bit OS). Right-click the file, select Properties, and note the File Version shown in the Details tab.Affected if The file version matches 6.1.x.x or 7.0.x.x, indicating a vulnerable version of the ActiveX control.
-
Check for ActiveX control presence in Internet ExplorerOpen Internet Explorer (if available), go to Tools > Manage Add-ons, and look for 'Microsoft Terminal Services ActiveX Client' or 'RDP Client' in the list of add-ons. Confirm the version listed.Affected if The ActiveX control appears in the list with version 6.1 or 7.0, confirming the vulnerable component is loaded.
A system is affected only if the Remote Desktop Connection Client or its mstscax.dll ActiveX component is installed and the exact installed version is 6.1 or 7.0; versions outside this range (including earlier 6.0 versions or later 7.0+ versions) are not vulnerable to this specific CVE.
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 · scopedApply the Microsoft security update for this CVE (MS13-029) to patch the vulnerable RDP client versions, or restrict RDP client usage and block malicious web vectors via network filtering until patching can be completed.
Microsoft Security Update MS13-029 (for respective OS/Client version) or Windows 8+ with RDP 8.0+
- Check installed Remote Desktop Client version by opening mstscax.dll properties or checking Add/Remove Programs for 'Remote Desktop Connection 6.1' or 'Remote Desktop Connection 7.0'
- For Windows XP/Server 2003: Apply Microsoft Security Update MS13-029 (KB2828223 for RDP 6.1 client)
- For Windows 7/Server 2008 R2: Apply Microsoft Security Update MS13-029 (KB2828222 for RDP 7.0 client)
- Alternatively, upgrade to a newer Windows version that includes an updated RDP client (Windows 8 or later includes RDP 8.0 which is not affected)
- Restart any Remote Desktop Connection sessions after applying the update
- Verify the update was applied successfully via Windows Update or by checking installed updates
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-1296 — 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-2013-1296 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