CVE-2010-1608
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 · uneditedStack-based buffer overflow in IBM Lotus Notes 8.5 and 8.5fp1, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unknown attack vectors, as demonstrated by the vd_ln module in VulnDisco 9.0. NOTE: as of 20100222, this disclosure has no actionable information. However, because the VulnDisco author is a reliable researcher, the issue is being assigned a CVE identifier for tracking purposes.
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 · low confidenceStack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in IBM Lotus Notes 8.5 and 8.5fp1 (and possibly other versions) that allows remote arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability was identified through the VulnDisco 9.0 tool but no actionable technical details or specific attack vectors have been publicly disclosed.
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= 8.5= 8.5.1= 8.5.1.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 installed Lotus Notes versionCheck the installed version via the Windows registry at HKLM\Software\IBM\Notes\Version or HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\IBM\Notes\Version, or run 'nlsx -v' from the Notes program directoryAffected if The version reported is exactly 8.5, 8.5.1, or 8.5.1.1
-
Confirm Lotus Notes installation existsLocate the Notes program directory (typically C:\Program Files\IBM\Lotus\Notes or C:\Program Files (x86)\IBM\Lotus\Notes) and verify the notes.exe binary existsAffected if Lotus Notes 8.5.x is installed on the system
-
Verify if Notes client is accessible on networkCheck if the Domino server or Notes client ports are listening (common ports: 1352 for Domino, 63148 for NRPC). Use 'netstat -an | findstr 1352' or 'netstat -an | findstr 63148'Affected if Lotus Notes/Domino services are exposed on network listeners and the version matches 8.5/8.5.1/8.5.1.1
You are affected only if your installed IBM Lotus Notes version is exactly 8.5, 8.5.1, or 8.5.1.1 - note that limited technical details are available so version checking is the primary detection method.
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 vendor patches when available; until then, minimize exposure by restricting network access to Lotus Notes clients/servers and monitoring for suspicious activity. Consider upgrading to newer Lotus Notes versions if available.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1608 — 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-2010-1608 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