CVE-2002-1010
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedLotus Domino R4 allows remote attackers to bypass access restrictions for files in the web root via an HTTP request appended with a "?" character, which is treated as a wildcard character and bypasses the web handlers.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceLotus Domino R4 treats the '?' character in HTTP requests as a wildcard, allowing remote attackers to bypass access restrictions for files in the web root. By appending '?' to a request, the server matches the file regardless of access controls, enabling unauthorized file retrieval.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 4.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Lotus Domino versionCheck the Domino server version by opening the Domino Administrator client, or run 'show server' at the Domino console, or inspect the notes.ini file for the version= settingAffected if Version is Domino R4 or 4.0 (or any version <= 4.0)
-
Confirm HTTP server is enabledVerify the HTTP task is running by typing 'show tasks' at the Domino console, or check if port 80 (or 443) is listening via netstatAffected if HTTP task is loaded and listening for web requests
-
Review web-enabled directories with ACLsExamine the Domino Directory (NAB) and check which databases/documents have web access enabled, particularly looking at ACL settings for web usersAffected if Web directories or databases have ACL restrictions configured
-
Test the question mark bypass conditionMake an HTTP request to a protected file in the web root with '?' appended (e.g., GET /protected.nsf/admin? HTTP/1.1), or inspect HTTP logging for any requests containing '?' in the pathAffected if Requests with '?' successfully retrieve content that would normally be restricted by ACLs
Environment is affected if running Lotus Domino R4 4.0 or lower with HTTP server enabled and web directories protected by ACLs, where appending '?' to URLs bypasses those access controls.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade from Lotus Domino R4 to a supported, patched version, or implement a WAF/filter to block requests containing '?' characters in the URL path.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-1010 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2002-1010 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data