CVE-2010-0301
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 · uneditedmain.C in maildrop 2.3.0 and earlier, when run by root with the -d option, uses the gid of root for execution of the .mailfilter file in a user's home directory, which allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted file.
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 confidenceIn maildrop 2.3.0 and earlier, when the program is invoked by root with the -d (delivery) option, it executes the user's .mailfilter file from the home directory using root's group ID (gid) rather than dropping to the unprivileged user's gid. This allows any local user with a home directory to craft a malicious .mailfilter file that executes with elevated group privileges, enabling local privilege escalation.
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<= 2.3.0= 0.50= 0.51= 0.51b= 0.51c= 0.54= 0.54a= 0.54b= 0.55= 0.55a= 0.55b= 0.55cCVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/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 installed maildrop versionRun `maildrop --version` or check package manager (dpkg -l maildrop, rpm -q maildrop)Affected if Version is 2.3.0 or earlier, or matches 0.50, 0.51, 0.51b, 0.51c, 0.54, 0.54a, 0.54b, 0.55, 0.55a, 0.55b, 0.55c
-
Check if maildrop runs as root with -d optionSearch mail server configs (sendmail, postfix, qmail), system aliases (/etc/aliases), and forward files for lines containing 'maildrop -d' or '|maildrop' run as rootAffected if Any configuration runs maildrop with -d flag while maildrop process executes as root user
-
Locate .mailfilter files in home directoriesRun `find /home -name .mailfilter 2>/dev/null` and check ownership and permissionsAffected if Any .mailfilter files exist in user home directories and maildrop runs as root with -d
-
Verify maildrop process execution contextCheck running processes with `ps aux | grep maildrop` and review any wrapper scripts that invoke maildrop as rootAffected if maildrop process runs with EUID=0 (root) when delivering mail to user mailboxes
User is affected if maildrop version is <= 2.3.0 or matches an affected release, AND maildrop is invoked as root with the -d flag to deliver user mail, allowing .mailfilter file execution with elevated group privileges.
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 dataAvoid running maildrop as root with the -d option; upgrade to a patched version that properly drops privileges before executing user-controlled .mailfilter files; restrict permissions on .mailfilter files in user home directories.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,248.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0301 — 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-2010-0301 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