CVE-2010-2054
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 · uneditedInteger overflow in httpAdapter.c in httpAdapter in SBLIM SFCB 1.3.4 through 1.3.7, when the configuration sets httpMaxContentLength to a zero value, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a large integer in the Content-Length HTTP header, aka bug #3001915. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in SBLIM SFCB's httpAdapter component (httpAdapter.c) allows remote attackers to trigger heap memory corruption via a large integer in the Content-Length HTTP header when httpMaxContentLength is configured to zero, potentially leading to DoS or code execution.
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= 1.3.4= 1.3.5= 1.3.6= 1.3.7CVSS 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 SFCB versionRun the package manager query for sfcb (e.g., rpm -q sfcb, dpkg -l sfcb, or check /opt/sfcb directory for version files) and compare against affected versions 1.3.4 through 1.3.7Affected if Installed version is 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, or 1.3.7
-
Verify httpAdapter component is activeCheck if the SFCB http daemon is running and listening on its HTTP port (typically 5987 or 5988). Use commands like ps aux | grep sfcb or netstat -anp | grep sfcbAffected if SFCB httpAdapter process is running and accepting HTTP connections
-
Inspect httpMaxContentLength configurationLocate the SFCB configuration file (commonly in /etc/sfcb or /opt/sfcb directory, file named sfcb.cfg or similar) and search for the httpMaxContentLength parameter settingAffected if httpMaxContentLength is explicitly set to zero (0)
A system is affected if it runs SFCB versions 1.3.4-1.3.7 with the httpAdapter enabled AND httpMaxContentLength is configured to zero, allowing a remote attacker to trigger the integer overflow via a crafted Content-Length header.
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.
dbcve · scopedSet httpMaxContentLength to a non-zero value in the configuration, or upgrade to a patched version of SFCB that addresses this integer overflow vulnerability.
- Ensure the httpMaxContentLength configuration parameter is NOT set to zero in the SFCB configuration
- If httpMaxContentLength is currently set to 0, change it to a positive integer value appropriate for your environment (e.g., 10485760 for 10MB)
- Restart the SFCB service after making configuration changes
- Verify the configuration change was applied correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2054 — 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-2010-2054 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