CVE-2010-0383
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 · uneditedTor before 0.2.1.22, and 0.2.2.x before 0.2.2.7-alpha, uses deprecated identity keys for certain directory authorities, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to compromise the anonymity of traffic sources and destinations.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability affects Tor versions before 0.2.1.22 and 0.2.2.x before 0.2.2.7-alpha. The issue is that certain directory authorities used deprecated identity keys, which are weaker cryptographic keys that should have been replaced. This allowed man-in-the-middle attackers to potentially compromise the anonymity of Tor traffic by intercepting or manipulating the directory authority communications that inform clients about the network topology.
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= 0.0.2= 0.0.2_pre13= 0.0.2_pre14= 0.0.2_pre15= 0.0.2_pre16= 0.0.2_pre17= 0.0.2_pre18= 0.0.2_pre19= 0.0.2_pre20= 0.0.2_pre21= 0.0.2_pre22= 0.0.2_pre23CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Tor versionRun 'tor --version' or check the Tor package version installed on your systemAffected if The version is before 0.2.1.22 or is 0.2.2.x before 0.2.2.7-alpha
-
Verify Tor is runningCheck if the Tor process is active using 'ps aux | grep tor' or check service statusAffected if Tor is running and the version meets the affected criteria from step 1
-
Inspect Tor configuration for directory authoritiesExamine torrc configuration file for custom DirectoryAuthority entries or default authority settingsAffected if Custom directory authorities are configured that may be using deprecated identity keys
Your environment is affected if you are running a Tor version before 0.2.1.22 or 0.2.2.x before 0.2.2.7-alpha and actively connecting to the Tor network via directory authorities.
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 to Tor version 0.2.1.22 or later, or version 0.2.2.7-alpha or later, which contain the corrected directory authority identity keys.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0383 — 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-2010-0383 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