CVE-2010-0300
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 · uneditedcache.c in ircd-ratbox before 2.2.9 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and daemon crash) via a HELP command.
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 vulnerability exists in cache.c of ircd-ratbox versions prior to 2.2.9. When processing a remote HELP command, the code dereferences a NULL pointer, causing the IRC daemon to crash and resulting in a 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 data<= 2.2.8= 1.0= 1.1= 1.1.1= 1.1.2= 1.2.1= 1.2.2= 1.2.3= 1.3= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.4CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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 if ircd-ratbox is runningRun 'ps aux | grep ircd' or 'pgrep -a ircd' to list running ircd-ratbox processesAffected if No ircd-ratbox process found means not affected by this specific vulnerability
-
Determine the installed ircd-ratbox versionRun 'ircd --version' or check the package manager output (dpkg -l ircd-ratbox, rpm -qi ircd-ratbox)Affected if Version is less than 2.2.9 (including any 1.x version listed: 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.4) - compare your installed version against these ranges
-
Verify the IRC service is network accessibleCheck if the IRC daemon is listening on configured ports (usually 6667) using 'netstat -tlnp | grep 6667' or 'ss -tlnp | grep 6667'Affected if Service is not listening remotely - the vulnerability requires the remote HELP command to be processed, so a local-only or firewalled instance reduces exposure
You are affected if ircd-ratbox is running a version lower than 2.2.9 (or any 1.x version) and the service accepts remote connections that could send a crafted HELP command.
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 ircd-ratbox to version 2.2.9 or later to receive the patch that properly handles the HELP command and prevents the NULL pointer dereference.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0300 — 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-2010-0300 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