Security Resilience

CVE-2011-1889

Memory Safety in Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway 2010

CISA KEVActive ExploitationEUVD ExploitedMemory Safety
Published
16 June 2011
Modified
22 April 2026
KEV Added
03 March 2022
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.49 99th percentile
Risk Priority 97 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2011-1889 is a critical-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, ranked in the top 1% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.

Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary

Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.

The vulnerability is a memory corruption issue, tracked as CWE-119, in the NSPLookupServiceNext function within the client component of Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway (TMG) 2010. It is assigned CVE-2011-1889 with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 and was publicly disclosed on 16 June 2011.

Remote attackers unauthenticated over the network can exploit the flaw by sending unspecified requests that trigger the memory corruption, resulting in arbitrary code execution on the affected system.

Microsoft addressed the issue in security bulletin MS11-040, with additional details available in advisories from Secunia, SecurityFocus, SecurityTracker, and IBM X-Force. No information on observed in-the-wild exploitation is provided in the source references.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The NSPLookupServiceNext function in the client in Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway (TMG) 2010 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors involving unspecified requests, aka "TMG Firewall Client Memory Corruption Vulnerability."

CWE(s)
KEV Date Added
03 March 2022

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2017-0022Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2021-31979Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2017-11882Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2017-0101Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2014-6332Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2015-2546Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2016-7193Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2020-0796Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2019-1214Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV
CVE-2017-11826Same vendor: Microsoftboth on KEV

Affected Assets

microsoft
forefront threat management gateway
2010

Mitigating Controls

Likely Mitigating Controls AI

Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.

addresses: CWE-119

Ongoing control assessments and code testing (static/dynamic analysis, fuzzing) surface memory buffer restriction failures, which are then remediated before release.

addresses: CWE-119

Managed runtimes used by platform-independent applications (e.g., JVM, CLR) enforce memory safety, preventing most buffer overflows that require direct memory manipulation.

addresses: CWE-119

Memory protections (e.g., W^X, ASLR) make exploitation of buffer-boundary violations far harder to turn into code execution.

addresses: CWE-119

Detects exploitation attempts that produce memory corruption, crashes, or anomalous behavior.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

blocks

A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure coding guidelines, security requirements, testing including code scans and penetration tests, developer training) that reach buffer management and can stop many buffer overruns from reaching production, but leaves a bounded remainder (e.g. flaws in non-software components, incomplete enforcement of guidelines, or post-deployment changes)

blocks

Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.

blocks

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (e.g. least privilege, fail securely, distrust external input, hardening) plus design reviews that can catch and stop buffer-boundary errors before they reach code, but this is only one minority slice of CWE-119's broad surface (language-specific flaws, unsafe library use, compiler/runtime mitigations, and post-deployment instances remain outside its direct scope).

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.

finds

Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-119, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-823.

References