CVE-2010-1689
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 · uneditedThe DNS implementation in smtpsvc.dll before 6.0.2600.5949 in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4 and earlier, Windows XP SP3 and earlier, Windows Server 2003 SP2 and earlier, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and earlier, Windows Server 2008 R2, Exchange Server 2003 SP3 and earlier, Exchange Server 2007 SP2 and earlier, and Exchange Server 2010 uses predictable transaction IDs that are formed by incrementing a previous ID by 1, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof DNS responses, a different vulnerability than CVE-2010-0024 and CVE-2010-0025.
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 confidenceThe DNS implementation in smtpsvc.dll uses predictable transaction IDs formed by incrementing a previous ID by 1, enabling man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof DNS responses and perform cache poisoning attacks.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versions= r2= 2003= 2007= 2010CVSS 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
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/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.
-
Identify Windows versionRun 'winver' or check system properties to determine if the installed Windows version is 2000, XP, Server 2003, or Server 2008/R2Affected if The installed Windows version is any release of 2000, XP, Server 2003, or Server 2008/R2
-
Identify Exchange Server versionCheck for installed Exchange Server by reviewing program files or running 'Get-ExchangeServer' if Exchange management tools are availableAffected if Exchange Server 2003, 2007, or 2010 is installed on the system
-
Verify SMTP service presenceCheck if the SMTP service (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) is installed and running. In Services.msc, look for 'Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)' service or check for smtpsvc.dll in system directoriesAffected if The SMTP service is enabled and smtpsvc.dll is in use, as this component contains the vulnerable DNS implementation
-
Confirm DNS client usageVerify the DNS Client service is running (services.msc) and that the system is configured to perform DNS resolution, which would utilize the predictable transaction ID mechanismAffected if The system uses the built-in DNS client for name resolution while the SMTP service is active
A system is affected if it runs any version of Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, or Server 2008/R2, or if it runs Exchange Server 2003, 2007, or 2010, and has the SMTP service enabled making outbound DNS queries through the vulnerable smtpsvc.dll implementation.
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 Microsoft security updates to affected Windows and Exchange Server versions; for end-of-life systems, consider network-level DNS validation controls or system replacement.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-1689 — 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-2010-1689 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