CVE-2010-0562
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 sdump function in sdump.c in fetchmail 6.3.11, 6.3.12, and 6.3.13, when running in verbose mode on platforms for which char is signed, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via an SSL X.509 certificate containing non-printable characters with the high bit set, which triggers a heap-based buffer overflow during escaping.
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 in fetchmail's sdump function when verbose mode is enabled on platforms where char is signed. Malicious SSL X.509 certificates containing non-printable characters with the high bit set trigger overflow during character escaping, allowing potential code execution or 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= 6.3.11= 6.3.12= 6.3.13CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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.
-
Check installed fetchmail versionRun 'fetchmail --version' or 'fetchmail -V' to see the version numberAffected if Version is 6.3.11, 6.3.12, or 6.3.13
-
Check if verbose mode is enabled in fetchmail configurationExamine fetchmailrc configuration files for 'set verbose' or check command-line invocations for -v flagAffected if Verbose mode is enabled (either via 'set verbose' in config or -v on command line)
-
Check if fetchmail connects to SSL/IMAPS/POP3S serversReview fetchmailrc for 'ssl' or 'sslproto' options, or check for IMAPS (port 993) or POP3S (port 995) connectionsAffected if Fetchmail is configured to use SSL/TLS connections to remote servers
You are affected if you run fetchmail version 6.3.11-6.3.13 with verbose mode enabled while connecting to SSL servers that could present malicious certificates.
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 fetchmail to version 6.3.14 or later. As a workaround, avoid running fetchmail in verbose mode (-v flag) when connecting to untrusted servers.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0562 — 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-2010-0562 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