CVE-2022-27525
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 · uneditedA malicious crafted .dwf or .pct file when consumed through DesignReview.exe application could lead to memory corruption vulnerability by write access violation. This vulnerability in conjunction with other vulnerabilities could lead to code execution in the context of the current process.
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 confidenceAutodesk DesignReview.exe contains a memory corruption vulnerability when parsing maliciously crafted .dwf or .pct files, leading to a write access violation. This can potentially allow an attacker to achieve code execution in the context of the current process when chained with other vulnerabilities.
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= 2011= 2012= 2013= 2017= 2018CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 DesignReview.exe installationSearch for DesignReview.exe in typical installation directories such as C:\Program Files\Autodesk\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Autodesk\, or use the search function to find the executable on the systemAffected if The file DesignReview.exe is found on the system
-
Obtain the installed version numberRight-click on DesignReview.exe, select Properties, then navigate to the Details tab and note the Product version fieldAffected if The version shown is 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017, or 2018 (exact match)
-
Verify the application is used for .dwf or .pct file handlingCheck if DesignReview is configured as a handler for .dwf or .pct file extensions by looking at default program settings or file associations in Windows Control PanelAffected if DesignReview is registered as the default handler for .dwf or .pct files, meaning untrusted files of these types could be opened automatically
A user is affected if Autodesk DesignReview version 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017, or 2018 is installed and configured to open .dwf or .pct files.
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 patch for DesignReview when available. Until then, avoid opening untrusted .dwf or .pct files and restrict file handling to trusted sources only.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-27525 — 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-2022-27525 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