CVE-2010-0358
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 · uneditedHeap-based buffer overflow in the server in IBM Lotus Domino 7 and 8.5 FP1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon exit) and possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string in a crafted LDAP message to a TCP port, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-3087.
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 confidenceHeap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in IBM Lotus Domino 7 and 8.5 FP1 server's LDAP service. Remote attackers can send a crafted LDAP message with an excessively long string to a TCP port, causing daemon exit (DoS) and potentially achieving code execution via heap corruption.
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= 7.0= 8.5.0.1CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/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 IBM Lotus Domino versionOn the Domino server, open the Domino Administrator client or check the server's version via console command 'show version'. Alternatively, examine the installation directory for version metadata or check the notes.ini file for version strings.Affected if The installed version is 7.0 or 8.5.0.1 (8.5 FP1)
-
Confirm LDAP service is enabledCheck if the LDAP task is loaded on the Domino server by running 'show tasks' from the Domino console, or examine the server's notes.ini for 'ServerTasks=' entry containing 'LDAP'.Affected if LDAP is listed as an enabled server task
-
Verify LDAP listener is activeCheck if Domino is listening on LDAP ports (default 389 for LDAP, 636 for LDAPS) by running 'netstat -an' or using a port scanner targeting these ports on the server.Affected if Ports 389 or 636 are in LISTEN state and bound to the Domino server process
-
Assess network exposure of LDAP portFrom an external host, attempt to connect to the Domino server on port 389 (e.g., using telnet, nc, or LDAP client). If the connection succeeds, the LDAP service is network-accessible.Affected if LDAP port 389 (or 636) is accessible from untrusted networks or the internet
The environment is affected if the server runs Domino version 7.0 or 8.5.0.1, has LDAP service enabled, and the LDAP port is network-accessible to attackers.
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 IBM Lotus Domino to version 8.5.2 or later, or apply the relevant interim fix. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider restricting LDAP port access via firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted networks only.
- 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-2010-0358 — 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-2010-0358 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