Code execution via crafted PCT file
Published Oct 14, 2022 · Updated May 14, 2025
Memory corruption in Autodesk Design Review 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017, and 2018 allows attackers to execute code via a crafted PCT file. DesignReview.exe writes to an invalid memory location while consuming the file, corrupting process memory; Autodesk has not disclosed a narrower parser locus. The target must open the malicious file, and code execution is reported only when this flaw is chained with other vulnerabilities and remains confined to the current process.
Summary
What happened
Memory corruption in Autodesk Design Review 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017, and 2018 allows attackers to execute code via a crafted PCT file. DesignReview.exe writes to an invalid memory location while consuming the file, corrupting process memory; Autodesk has not disclosed a narrower parser locus. The target must open the malicious file, and code execution is reported only when this flaw is chained with other vulnerabilities and remains confined to the current process.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2022-41306
- Published
- Oct 14, 2022
- Updated
- May 14, 2025
- Vendor
- Autodesk
- Product
- Autodesk Design Review
- Classifications
- CWE-787, T1204.002, T1203
- Attack vector
- local
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Oct 14, 2022CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- May 14, 2025Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=2018
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo