CVE-2010-1671
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 · uneditedhsolinkcontrol in hsolink 1.0.118 allows local users to gain privileges via shell metacharacters in command-line arguments, as demonstrated by the second argument in a down action.
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 confidencehsolinkcontrol in hsolink 1.0.118 is vulnerable to local privilege escalation through shell metacharacter injection in command-line arguments. Specifically, the second argument in a 'down' action is not properly sanitized, allowing local users to execute arbitrary commands with elevated privileges.
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= 1.0.118CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/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.
-
Check if hsolink is installedSearch for hsolink-related files and directories on the system. Common locations include /usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, or /opt/. Look for directories named 'hsolink' or files containing 'hsolink' in their name using: find / -name '*hsolink*' 2>/dev/nullAffected if hsolink-related files or directories exist on the system
-
Identify hsolinkcontrol binary versionLocate the hsolinkcontrol binary (typically found within the hsolink installation directory). Run: ls -la <path_to_hsolink>/hsolinkcontrol or which hsolinkcontrol. Then check its version if available via: <path_to_hsolink>/hsolinkcontrol --version or review any version information in the binary or accompanying filesAffected if The binary version is 1.0.118
-
Verify binary permissions and ownershipRun: ls -la <path_to_hsolink>/hsolinkcontrol to check if the binary is setuid root or has elevated privileges. Examine the ownership and permissions, specifically looking for 's' in the owner execute field (setuid)Affected if The binary has setuid root permissions or is owned by root with executable privileges for non-root users
-
Check for exploitation indicatorsReview system logs for any suspicious commands executed through hsolinkcontrol, particularly failed or unexpected 'down' action invocations. Check /var/log/secure, /var/log/auth.log, or similar logs for hsolinkcontrol entries. Also check for any unexpected cron jobs or processes related to hsolinkAffected if Log entries show unusual command patterns or unexpected 'down' action usage with shell metacharacters
The environment is affected if hsolink version 1.0.118 is installed and the hsolinkcontrol binary exists with elevated permissions that allow non-root users to invoke the 'down' action with unsanitized arguments.
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 hsolink to a patched version that properly sanitizes all command-line arguments before passing them to shell execution, or apply input validation fixes to hsolinkcontrol to prevent shell metacharacter injection.
- Consultation2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1671 — 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-2010-1671 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