CVE-2013-3129: Affected product: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available

What, why and how

Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 SP2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 4, and 4.5; Silverlight 5 before 5.1.20513.0; win32k.sys in the kernel-mode drivers, and GDI+, DirectWrite, and Journal, in Windows XP SP2 and SP3, Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012, and Windows RT; GDI+ in Office 2003 SP3, 2007 SP3, and 2010 SP1; GDI+ in Visual Studio .NET 2003 SP1; and GDI+ in Lync 2010, 2010 Attendee, 2013, and Basic 2013 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted TrueType Font (TTF) file, aka "TrueType Font Parsing Vulnerability."

What

Why

Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.

What

Why

Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.

How

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation

Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.

No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material

Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.

None recorded

No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.

Likely attack path: local access → Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → execute code or commands in the affected security context
Attack surface: Local
Privileges required: None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction: Required interaction required
Attack complexity: Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary: Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness ? CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.: CWE-94 ↗
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
CVSS vector ? CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
Post-exploitation / living off the land: After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.

UnauthenticatedRemote code executionCWE-94

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2013-3067Official EUVD mapping

0 linked advisory records.

Official EUVD record ↗

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status ? Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.: Patch available
Affected: n/a
Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
Action: Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
Workaround: No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.

Evidence and provenance

Published 10 Jul 2013 · Last source change 16 Jan 2025, 20:26 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1

CVSS sourceCISA ADP

EPSS source

The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.

FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-13

European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2013-3067

Product sourceUnavailable

Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references

CWE sourceCISA ADP

NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates ↗

13 Sep 2026, 17:01 UTC
ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2013-3067 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.
Before
not recorded
After
{"euvdId":"EUVD-2013-3067"}
ENISA EUVD ↗
16 Jan 2025, 20:26 UTC
Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: removed patch: docs.microsoft.com/ms13-052; removed patch: docs.microsoft.com/ms13-053; 2 further removals.
Before
patch: docs.microsoft.com/ms13-052 · patch: docs.microsoft.com/ms13-053 · patch: docs.microsoft.com/ms13-054 · 1 more references
After
no authoritative guidance recorded
CNA ↗
16 Jan 2025, 20:26 UTC
Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.
Before
n/a: n/a · Fixed: An authoritative update reference is available, but the fixed version is not recorded in the structured CVE fields. Check the linked vendor advisory for the applicable release.
After
n/a: n/a · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
CNA ↗
16 Jan 2025, 20:26 UTC
Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Patch available to Awaiting fix.
Before
Patch available
After
Awaiting fix
CNA ↗
16 Jan 2025, 20:26 UTC
Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.
CNA ↗

2013-07-10CVE published

ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2013-3067↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗

Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report

CVE: Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS: Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS: Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE: Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA: CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD: National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT: A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC: Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF: Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL: Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.

Affected product: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Published severity in operational context

Evidence used

Compensating controls

Verification

National CERT insights
?
CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

EUVD-2013-3067