CVE-2010-2112
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in the FTP service in FileCOPA before 5.03 allows remote attackers to read or overwrite arbitrary files via unknown vectors. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely 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 · low confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in the FTP service of FileCOPA prior to version 5.03 allows remote attackers to manipulate file paths using traversal sequences (such as ../) to access files outside the intended root directory, potentially enabling unauthorized read or overwrite of arbitrary system files.
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<= 5.02= 1.01= 2.01= 2.02= 3.01= 4.01CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:N
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.
-
Confirm FileCOPA FTP server is runningCheck running processes or services for FileCOPA (look for 'FileCOPA' or 'ftpd' process), or check if port 21 (or configured FTP port) is listening using 'netstat -an | grep :21' or 'Get-NetTCPConnection -LocalPort 21'Affected if FileCOPA FTP service is active and exposed on the network
-
Identify the installed FileCOPA versionCheck the application's version information - look in the installation directory for version details, check the Windows service properties if installed as a service, or query the FTP server banner on the listening port using a tool like 'telnet <host> 21' or 'nc -v <host> 21'Affected if Version cannot be determined or shows a version number matching <= 5.02, 1.01, 2.01, 2.02, 3.01, or 4.01
-
Compare your version against affected rangesIf version is obtained, verify it against the affected list: versions 5.02 or lower, or exactly 1.01, 2.01, 2.02, 3.01, or 4.01 are vulnerableAffected if Installed version matches any of the affected versions listed (5.02 or below, or specifically 1.01, 2.01, 2.02, 3.01, 4.01)
You are affected if the FileCOPA FTP server is running and its version matches 5.02 or lower, or is one of 1.01, 2.01, 2.02, 3.01, or 4.01.
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 dataUpgrade FileCOPA to version 5.03 or later. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement strict input validation on FTP commands to reject path traversal sequences and restrict FTP user access to designated directories only.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2112 — 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-2010-2112 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