CVE-2010-1192
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 · uneditedlibESMTP, probably 1.0.4 and earlier, does not properly handle a '\0' character in a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of an X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers via a crafted certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority, a related issue to CVE-2009-2408.
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 confidencelibESMTP up to version 1.0.4 does not properly handle a null character ('\0') in the Common Name (CN) field of an X.509 certificate subject. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers by presenting a crafted certificate with a null-padded CN that bypasses validation while appearing to be issued by a trusted Certification Authority.
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<= 1.0.4= 0.1= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.6= 0.6.1= 0.7.0= 0.7.1= 0.8.0= 0.8.1CVSS 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.
-
Locate libESMTP librarySearch for libesmtp shared library files on the system using: find /usr -name '*libesmtp*' 2>/dev/null or dpkg -l | grep libesmtp (Debian) / rpm -qa | grep libesmtp (Red Hat)Affected if libESMTP library is present on the system
-
Identify installed libESMTP versionRun: dpkg -l | grep libesmtp (Debian) or rpm -q libesmtp (Red Hat) or check the library file version with: strings <path_to_lib> | grep -i versionAffected if The installed version is 1.0.4 or lower (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6.1, 0.7.0, 0.7.1, 0.8.0, 0.8.1, or any build <= 1.0.4)
-
Identify applications using libESMTPSearch for binaries that link to libESMTP: ldd $(which <mail_client>) 2>/dev/null | grep libesmtp, or check mail client package dependenciesAffected if Any mail client or application that performs SMTP over SSL/TLS is using a vulnerable libESMTP version
-
Determine if SSL/TLS SMTP is configuredInspect the mail client's configuration or connection settings for SMTP over SSL/TLS (often port 465 or 587 with STARTTLS)Affected if SSL/TLS enabled SMTP connections are in use with a vulnerable libESMTP version
You are affected if libESMTP version 1.0.4 or lower is installed and any application uses it for SSL/TLS SMTP connections, allowing a MITM attacker to bypass CN certificate validation with a null-padded certificate.
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 dataUpdate libESMTP to a patched version. Until then, implement additional certificate validation beyond CN checking (e.g., verify Subject Alternative Names, implement certificate pinning) to mitigate MITM attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1192 — 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-2010-1192 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