CVE-2010-0921
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Lotus iNotes (aka Domino Web Access or DWA) before 229.281 for Domino 8.0.2 FP4 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via vectors related to lack of "XSS/CSRF Get Filter and Referer Check fixes."
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Lotus iNotes (Domino Web Access) allows remote attackers to hijack victim authentication by tricking users into executing unintended requests. The vulnerability stems from missing XSS/CSRF Get Filter and Referer Check protections in versions prior to 229.281 for Domino 8.0.2 FP4.
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<= 229.271= 229.011= 229.021= 229.031= 229.041= 229.051= 229.061= 229.101= 229.111= 229.131= 229.141= 229.151CVSS 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.
-
Verify IBM Lotus iNotes is installedCheck if the Domino server has iNotes web access enabled by reviewing the Domino server document in the Domino Directory (names.nsf) or by attempting to access the iNotes web URL (typically /iNotes/ or /mail/ on the Domino server)Affected if iNotes (Domino Web Access) is accessible and in use
-
Identify the installed iNotes versionLocate the iNotes version through the Domino server console command 'show server', or check the Domino server's Program directory for iNotes files, or access the iNotes login page and view the page source or server response headers for version informationAffected if The version cannot be determined or is not visible
-
Compare version against affected rangesCheck if the installed version is either 229.011, 229.021, 229.031, 229.041, 229.051, 229.061, 229.101, 229.111, 229.131, 229.141, 229.151, or any version less than or equal to 229.271Affected if The installed version matches any of these specific versions or is 229.271 or lower (but not 229.281 or higher)
-
Confirm Domino version and FP levelRun 'show server' at Domino console to verify Domino version is 8.0.2 and check if Fix Pack 4 (FP4) is appliedAffected if Running Domino 8.0.2 FP4 with iNotes version below 229.281
The environment is affected if IBM Lotus iNotes is running and the iNotes build version is either one of the listed specific versions or falls at or below 229.271, particularly on Domino 8.0.2 FP4.
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 iNotes to version 229.281 or later for Domino 8.0.2 FP4, or apply the available patch that implements XSS/CSRF Get Filter and Referer Check protections.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-0921 — 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-2010-0921 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