CVE-2010-0101
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 · uneditedThe embedded HTTP server in multiple Lexmark laser and inkjet printers and MarkNet devices, including X94x, W840, T656, N4000, E462, C935dn, 25xxN, and other models, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (operating system halt) via a malformed HTTP Authorization header.
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 confidenceThe embedded HTTP server in multiple Lexmark laser and inkjet printers and MarkNet devices contains a vulnerability where a malformed HTTP Authorization header can trigger an operating system halt, causing a complete denial of service.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
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 the Lexmark device modelLocate the model label on the device physical label or print a configuration/Setup page from the device control panel. The model number appears on the front label or in the printed output (examples: C540, C546, 25xxn).Affected if The device model is one of Lexmark 25xxn, C510, C52x, C53x, C540, C543, C544, or C546.
-
Confirm the embedded HTTP server is enabledEnter the device IP address in a web browser. If a login page or Lexmark web interface loads, the embedded HTTP server is active.Affected if The HTTP server responds with a Lexmark web interface, indicating the service is enabled.
-
Verify the HTTP server is network accessibleFrom a remote system, attempt a TCP connection to port 80 (HTTP) or port 443 (HTTPS) on the device IP address using telnet, netcat, or a port scanner.Affected if Port 80 or 443 is open and accepting connections from your network.
If you have any of the affected Lexmark models (25xxn, C510, C52x, C53x, C540, C543, C544, or C546) and the embedded HTTP server is reachable on the network, the device is vulnerable to CVE-2010-0101.
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 dataApply vendor firmware updates when available, and minimize attack surface by placing affected devices behind firewalls or in isolated network segments.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0101 — 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-2010-0101 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