CVE-2010-0123
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 database backup implementation in Employee Timeclock Software 0.99 stores sensitive information under the web root with insufficient access control, which allows remote attackers to download a database via a direct request for a "semi-predictable file name."
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 confidenceEmployee Timeclock Software 0.99 stores database backup files in a web-accessible directory with semi-predictable filenames and no access controls, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to directly download sensitive database contents via HTTP requests.
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= 0.99CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Verify the installed version is 0.99Locate the application installation and check its version number or version file. This vulnerability affects only version 0.99 exactly.Affected if The installed version is Employee Timeclock Software version 0.99
-
Identify the database backup storage locationExamine the application configuration files, scripts, or documentation to determine where database backup files are written and stored.Affected if Backup files are stored in any directory configured by the application
-
Determine if backup directory is web-accessibleCheck whether the backup storage path falls within the web server document root or is accessible via HTTP requests. Common patterns include directories like /backup, /db_backup, or subdirectories of the web root.Affected if The backup directory path is within or served by the web server document root
-
Test direct HTTP access to backup filesAttempt to request potential backup file URLs using HTTP GET requests. Common patterns include filenames with date stamps, sequential numbers, or common backup naming conventions.Affected if HTTP requests return database backup files without authentication
-
Assess backup filename predictabilityReview available backup files or application logs to determine if filenames follow a predictable pattern (dates, sequential numbers, static names).Affected if Filenames can be guessed or predicted based on observed patterns
A user is affected if running Employee Timeclock Software version 0.99 with database backups stored in a web-accessible location that can be downloaded without authentication.
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 dataRelocate database backups outside the web root directory, implement proper file permissions, and use cryptographically random filenames to prevent direct access and predictability attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0123 — 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-2010-0123 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