CVE-2010-1677
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 · uneditedMHonArc 2.6.16 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via start tags that are placed within other start tags, as demonstrated by a <bo<bo<bo<bo<body>dy>dy>dy>dy> sequence, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-4524.
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 confidenceMHonArc 2.6.16 contains a denial of service vulnerability in its HTML parsing logic. Attackers can trigger excessive CPU consumption by supplying specially crafted nested start tags (e.g., <bo<bo<bo<bo<body>dy>dy>dy>dy>) that cause the parser to enter a computationally expensive processing path, likely due to exponential backtracking or recursive handling of malformed tags.
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= 2.6.16CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Determine if MHonArc is installedRun command: which mhonarc or perl -MMHonArc -e 'print $MMHonArc::VERSION;'Affected if MHonArc is not installed or cannot be found, the system is not affected.
-
Identify the installed MHonArc versionRun: mhonarc -v or check the Perl module version as shown aboveAffected if Version is exactly 2.6.16, the system is affected by this CVE.
-
Verify MHonArc is configured to process HTML messagesCheck MHonArc resource file (commonly .mhonarc or ~/.mhonarc.rc) or examine command-line arguments used when invoking mhonarc for any HTML processing flagsAffected if MHonArc is actively processing or capable of processing HTML-formatted email messages, the vulnerability can be triggered.
-
Confirm the archive processing capability is in useLook for existing mhonarc archives in the system (check for .mhonarc.db files or archive directories containing processed email) or examine if mhonarc is run as part of email processing pipelinesAffected if MHonArc is being used to process email archives containing HTML content, the DoS condition can be exploited.
A system is affected if MHonArc version 2.6.16 is installed and configured to process HTML content, which is the default behavior.
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 dataIf a patched version of MHonArc is available, upgrade immediately. Otherwise, implement input validation or filtering to reject malformed HTML tag sequences before they reach MHonArc, and consider rate-limiting or disabling the affected functionality until a fix can be applied.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1677 — 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-2010-1677 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