Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 9.59% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
No CVSS base score is available from the CNA, CISA ADP or NIST. Absence of a score is not evidence of low risk; review the vendor advisory, affected exposure and exploit evidence.
No CVSS base score is available from the CNA, CISA ADP or NIST. Absence of a score is not evidence of low risk; review the vendor advisory, affected exposure and exploit evidence.
Fix not verifiedBuffer overflow in InnerMedia DynaZip DUNZIP32.dll file version 5.00.03 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a ZIP file containing a file with a long filename, as demonstrated using (1) a .rjs (skin) file in RealPlayer 10 through RealPlayer 10.5 (6.0.12.1053), RealOne Player 1 and 2, (2) the Restore Backup function in CheckMark Software Payroll 2004/2005 3.9.6 and earlier, (3) CheckMark MultiLedger before 7.0.2, (4) dtSearch 6.x and 7.x, (5) mcupdmgr.exe and mghtml.exe in McAfee VirusScan 10 Build 10.0.21 and earlier, (6) IBM Lotus Notes before 6.5.5, and other products. NOTE: it is unclear whether this is the same vulnerability as CVE-2004-0575, although the data manipulations are the same.
Buffer overflow in InnerMedia DynaZip DUNZIP32.dll file version 5.00.03 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a ZIP file containing a file with a long filename, as demonstrated using (1) a .rjs (skin) file in RealPlayer 10 through RealPlayer 10.5 (6.0.12.1053), RealOne Player 1 and 2, (2) the Restore Backup function in CheckMark Software Payroll 2004/2005 3.9.6 and earlier, (3) CheckMark MultiLedger before 7.0.2, (4) dtSearch 6.x and 7.x, (5) mcupdmgr.exe and mghtml.exe in McAfee VirusScan 10 Build 10.0.21 and earlier, (6) IBM Lotus Notes before 6.5.5, and other products. NOTE: it is unclear whether this is the same vulnerability as CVE-2004-0575, although the data manipulations are the same.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
Buffer overflow in InnerMedia DynaZip DUNZIP32.dll file version 5.00.03 and earlier allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a ZIP file containing a file with a long filename, as demonstrated using (1) a .rjs (skin) file in RealPlayer 10 through RealPlayer 10.5 (6.0.12.1053), RealOne Player 1 and 2, (2) the Restore Backup function in CheckMark Software Payroll 2004/2005 3.9.6 and earlier, (3) CheckMark MultiLedger before 7.0.2, (4) dtSearch 6.x and 7.x, (5) mcupdmgr.exe and mghtml.exe in McAfee VirusScan 10 Build 10.0.21 and earlier, (6) IBM Lotus Notes before 6.5.5, and other products. NOTE: it is unclear whether this is the same vulnerability as CVE-2004-0575, although the data manipulations are the same.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
Not available from the selected scoring authority.Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 1 Dec 2004 · Last source change 8 Aug 2024, 00:39 UTC · CWE not yet assigned
Missing structured fields: CVSS base score, CWE classification, affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.