CVE-2010-1103
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 · uneditedInteger overflow in Stainless allows remote attackers to bypass intended port restrictions on outbound TCP connections via a port number outside the range of the unsigned short data type, as demonstrated by a value of 65561 for TCP port 25.
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 confidenceInteger overflow in Stainless allows remote attackers to bypass intended port restrictions on outbound TCP connections by specifying a port number outside the unsigned short range (e.g., 65561), which wraps around to a restricted port (65561 - 65536 = 25).
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
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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.
-
Verify Mesadynamics Stainless installationCheck for Stainless application in program files, or run 'reg query HKLM\Software\Mesadynamics\Stainless' on Windows, or check application bundle on MacAffected if Stainless is installed and handles outbound TCP connections
-
Identify outbound connection configurationInspect Stainless configuration files or settings for any port restriction/filtering rules that control which outbound ports the application may connect toAffected if Outbound port restrictions exist that should block low-numbered privileged ports (e.g., ports below 1024)
-
Test port number handlingAttempt to initiate an outbound TCP connection from Stainless to a target using a port number above 65535 (e.g., 65561) and observe whether the connection wraps to the restricted port (65561 - 65536 = 25)Affected if Connections to restricted ports succeed when port numbers exceed the unsigned 16-bit range, indicating integer overflow vulnerability
If Mesadynamics Stainless is installed and processes outbound TCP connections, the integer overflow allows restricted port bypass when port values exceed 65535.
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 dataImplement proper bounds validation ensuring port numbers remain within the valid unsigned 16-bit range (0-65535) before any internal processing or network connection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1103 — 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-2010-1103 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