CVE-2010-0618
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 flood-protection feature in the base, IPDS DLE, Forms DLE, Barcode DLE, Prescribe DLE, and Printcryption DLE components on certain Lexmark laser and inkjet printers and MarkNet devices allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (TCP outage) by making many passive FTP connections and then aborting these connections.
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 · moderate confidenceThe flood-protection mechanism in multiple Lexmark printer firmware components (IPDS DLE, Forms DLE, Barcode DLE, Prescribe DLE, Printcryption DLE, and base) can be bypassed by establishing many passive FTP connections and then abruptly aborting them, causing a TCP outage and 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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 the printer modelAccess the printer's web interface, print a configuration page, or check the device label to confirm the model number is Lexmark Z2420Affected if The device is a Lexmark Z2420 (all versions are affected)
-
Verify FTP service statusCheck the printer's web interface or administrative console for FTP server settings; look for IPDS DLE, Forms DLE, Barcode DLE, Prescribe DLE, or Printcryption DLE module configurations that enable passive FTPAffected if Any of the mentioned FTP-based DLE modules are enabled on the printer
-
Confirm network accessibilityAttempt to reach the printer's FTP port (typically port 21) from an external network segment or use network scanning tools to detect open FTP services on the deviceAffected if The printer's FTP service is exposed to untrusted network segments
-
Check firmware versionRetrieve the firmware version from the printer's status page, configuration printout, or via SNMP/Lexmark management toolsAffected if Any firmware version is installed (the advisory states all versions of Z2420 are affected)
If the device is a Lexmark Z2420 with FTP-based DLE modules enabled and network-accessible, the flood-protection bypass vulnerability is present.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied firmware update for affected Lexmark laser and inkjet printers and MarkNet devices; if no update is available, consider network segmentation to limit exposure to this DoS vector.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0618 — 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-2010-0618 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