| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Network Dynamic Data Exchange (NetDDE) services for Microsoft Windows 98, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows attackers to remotely execute arbitrary code or locally gain privileges via a malicious message or application that involves an "unchecked buffer," possibly a buffer overflow. |
| The Windows Internet Naming Service (WINS) in Windows NT Server 4.0 SP 6a, NT Terminal Server 4.0 SP 6, Windows 2000 Server SP3 and SP4, and Windows Server 2003 does not properly validate the computer name value in a WINS packet, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (server crash), which results in an "unchecked buffer" and possibly triggers a buffer overflow, aka the "Name Validation Vulnerability." |
| Microsoft Word for Windows 6.0 Converter does not properly validate certain data lengths, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a .wri, .rtf, and .doc file sent by email or malicious web site, aka "Table Conversion Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2004-0901. |
| Multiple TCP/IP and ICMP implementations allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reset TCP connections) via spoofed ICMP error messages, aka the "blind connection-reset attack." NOTE: CVE-2004-0790, CVE-2004-0791, and CVE-2004-1060 have been SPLIT based on different attacks; CVE-2005-0065, CVE-2005-0066, CVE-2005-0067, and CVE-2005-0068 are related identifiers that are SPLIT based on the underlying vulnerability. While CVE normally SPLITs based on vulnerability, the attack-based identifiers exist due to the variety and number of affected implementations and solutions that address the attacks instead of the underlying vulnerabilities. |
| The Local Procedure Call (LPC) interface of the Windows Kernel for Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 does not properly validate the lengths of messages sent to the LPC port, which allows local users to gain privileges, aka "Windows Kernel Vulnerability." |
| Buffer overflow in Collaboration Data Objects (CDO), as used in Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Exchange Server, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code when CDOSYS or CDOEX processes an e-mail message with a large header name, as demonstrated using the "Content-Type" string. |
| The DHTML Edit Control (dhtmled.ocx) allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script into other domains by setting a name for a window, opening a child page whose target is the window with the given name, then injecting the script from the parent into the child using execScript, as demonstrated by "AbusiveParent" in Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2180. |
| Integer overflow in Microsoft Windows 98, 2000, XP SP2 and earlier, and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted compiled Help (.CHM) file with a large size field that triggers a heap-based buffer overflow, as demonstrated using a "ms-its:" URL in Internet Explorer. |
| Buffer overflow in the Server Service in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 and SP2, and Server 2003 SP1 allows remote attackers, including anonymous users, to execute arbitrary code via a crafted RPC message, a different vulnerability than CVE-2006-1314. |
| Microsoft Windows 2000 before Update Rollup 1 for SP4, when the "audit directory service access" policy is enabled, does not record a 565 event message for File Delete Child operations on an Active Directory object in the security event log, which could allow attackers to conduct unauthorized activities without detection. |
| Buffer overflow in the Telephony Application Programming Interface (TAPI) for Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows attackers to elevate privileges or execute arbitrary code via a crafted message. |
| Multiple TCP implementations with Protection Against Wrapped Sequence Numbers (PAWS) with the timestamps option enabled allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connection loss) via a spoofed packet with a large timer value, which causes the host to discard later packets because they appear to be too old. |
| A Windows NT domain user or administrator account has a guessable password. |
| The Microsoft Windows kernel in Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via crafted Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) requests. |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in the Plug and Play (PnP) service for Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted packet, and local users to gain privileges via a malicious application, as exploited by the Zotob (aka Mytob) worm. |
| Buffer overflow in the Print Spooler service (Spoolsv.exe) for Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a malicious message. |
| Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 before URP1 for Windows 2000 SP4 does not properly prevent NULL sessions from accessing certain alternate named pipes, which allows remote attackers to (1) list Windows services via svcctl or (2) read eventlogs via eventlog. |
| The cryptographic challenge of SMB authentication in Windows 95 and Windows 98 can be reused, allowing an attacker to replay the response and impersonate a user. |
| The SynAttackProtect protection in Microsoft Windows 2003 before SP1 and Windows 2000 before SP4 with Update Roll-up uses a hash of predictable data, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a flood of SYN packets that produce identical hash values, which slows down the hash table lookups. |
| NOTE: this issue has been disputed by third parties. Microsoft Windows XP, 2000, and 2003 allows local users to kill a writable process by using the CreateRemoteThread function with certain arguments on a process that has been opened using the OpenProcess function, possibly involving an invalid address for the start routine. NOTE: followup posts have disputed this issue, saying that if a user already has privileges to write to a process, then other functions could be called or the process could be terminated using PROCESS_TERMINATE |
