The Uniscribe (aka new Unicode Script Processor) implementation in USP10.DLL in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3, Server 2003 SP2, Vista SP1
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Plan (action score 43/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (Exploit-DB); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 18.5% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 97.2% of all records.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Add it to your regular patch cycle. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
The Uniscribe (aka new Unicode Script Processor) implementation in USP10.DLL in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3, Server 2003 SP2, Vista SP1 and SP2, and Server 2008 Gold and SP2, and Microsoft Office XP SP3, 2003 SP3, and 2007 SP2, does not properly validate tables associated with malformed OpenType fonts, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted (1) web site or (2) Office document, aka "Uniscribe Font Parsing Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability."
- Published
- Sep 15, 2010
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 18.5% · 97th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Report tools
Action score
43
Plan
Add it to your regular patch cycle.
- CVSS
- 37 / 40 · 9.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 6 / 30 · 18.5%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| microsoft | windows server 2003 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2003 |
| microsoft | windows server 2008 | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_server_2008 |
| microsoft | windows vista | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_vista |
| microsoft | windows xp | cpe:2.3:o:microsoft:windows_xp |
| microsoft | office | cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:office |
Using windows server 2003? Add it to your stack and be the first to know about CVEs like this one. (Windows Server, Active Directory)
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- microsoft windows server 2003all versions
- microsoft windows server 2008all versions
Same product
microsoft: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2011-2005afd.sys in the Ancillary Function Driver in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Server 2003 SP2 does not properly validate user-mode input KEV71This week
- CVE-2013-0810Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3, Windows Server 2003 SP2, Windows Vista SP2, and Windows Server 2008 SP2 allow remote attackers to execute 60This week
- CVE-2011-3400Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Server 2003 SP2 do not properly handle OLE objects in memory, which allows remote attackers to execute 58Plan
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2010-2563Sep 15, 2010 · The Word 97 text converter in the WordPad Text Converters in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Server 2003 SP2 does not properly parse ma42Plan
- ← EarlierCVE-2010-2567Sep 15, 2010 · The RPC client implementation in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Server 2003 SP2 does not properly allocate memory during the parsing o39Monitor
- Later →CVE-2010-3222Oct 13, 2010 · Stack-based buffer overflow in the Remote Procedure Call Subsystem (RPCSS) in Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and SP3 and Server 2003 SP2 allows lo29Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Exploit-DB entry ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Exploit-DB entry | dos | 2010-09-30 |
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- Published
- First PoC+14 d
- TodayOct 21, 2026+5880 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
If successful
- Confidentiality
- C · data can be read
- Integrity
- C · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- C · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- M
- Confidentiality impact
- C
- Integrity impact
- C
- Availability impact
- C
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.