CVE-2019-11867
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 · uneditedRealtek NDIS driver rt640x64.sys, file version 10.1.505.2015, fails to do any size checking on an input buffer from user space, which the driver assumes has a size greater than zero bytes. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must send an IRP with a system buffer size of 0.
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 confidenceThe Realtek NDIS driver (rt640x64.sys, version 10.1.505.2015) does not validate the size of an input buffer received from user space, incorrectly assuming the buffer has a size greater than zero bytes. An attacker with local access can exploit this by sending an IRP with a system buffer size of 0, potentially leading to a denial of service or privilege escalation.
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= 10.1.505.2015CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 the Realtek NDIS driver fileSearch for rt640x64.sys on the system using: Get-ChildItem -Path C:\Windows\System32\Drivers -Filter rt640x64.sys -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Select-Object FullName, Length, LastWriteTimeAffected if The file rt640x64.sys exists in the system drivers directory
-
Check the driver file versionRight-click the rt640x64.sys file, select Properties, then go to the Details tab to view the File version field. Alternatively, use: (Get-Item 'C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\rt640x64.sys').VersionInfo.FileVersionAffected if The file version is exactly 10.1.505.2015
-
Verify the driver is loadedOpen Device Manager, expand Network adapters, look for Realtek PCIe FE Family Controller or similar Realtek network adapters. Or run: Get-WmiObject Win32_PnPSignedDriver | Where-Object {$_.DeviceName -like '*Realtek*' -and $_.DriverVersion -eq '10.1.505.2015'}Affected if A Realtek network driver with version 10.1.505.2015 is currently installed and loaded
-
Check for driver signature statusRun: sigcheck.exe -accepteula -v rt640x64.sys (from Sysinternals) or use PowerShell: Get-AuthenticodeSignature 'C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\rt640x64.sys'Affected if The driver exists but has an invalid or missing digital signature, indicating it may be an older unpatched version
A system is affected if the Realtek NDIS driver (rt640x64.sys) with version 10.1.505.2015 is installed and loaded, as the vulnerability requires the vulnerable driver to be present with the flawed buffer size validation logic.
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 the vendor-supplied patch or updated Realtek driver when available. In the interim, restrict local access to privileged users only and monitor for suspicious IRP requests to the affected driver.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-11867 — 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-2019-11867 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